CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Expert Testimony: In General
.........Expert Testimony Appropriate
............Beyond Common Experience
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • Expert testimony is admissible re any subject sufficiently beyond common experience such that testimony will assist trier of fact.
  • Federal rule: Expert testimony admissible if it will assist trier of fact.
  • Officer with proper experience may testify as expert as to use of cryptic terms by drug dealers and interpret for jury encoded conversations b/t D and co-conspirators.
  • Officer properly allowed to testify as expert as to meaning of cryptic, encoded terminology used by D and drug dealing coconspirators; no FRE 403 error.
  • Expert may testify as to predicate matter from which jury might infer D's required mens rea (FRE).
  • Question of whether V was raped and sodomized prior to or after dying is a relevant circumstance of death for which a qualified forensic pathologist might offer an opinion.
  • No error in admitting E's testimony re possible positioning of V and shooter where evidence of execution style shooting of kneeling V was relevant to premeditated, deliberated murder, to aid jury and corroborate W testimony.
  • Court did not err in excluding expert testimony re D's remorse where jury heard D's taped statement for itself and had observed D testify and express remorse at guilt phase; testimony not beyond jury's experience.
  • DA expert's opinion re D's "personality disorder" was proper subject of expert testimony at penalty phase as it related to subject sufficiently beyond common experience and would assist jury.
  • Although jurors have some knowledge of matter, expert opinion properly admitted to explain conduct if opinion would assist jury.
  • Decisive consideration in admitting expert opinion is whether topic sufficiently beyond common experience that opinion would assist trier of fact.
  • No error in overruling D's objections to expert testimony of a former FBI agent explaining his assessment of various aspects of the murder and crime scene analysis.
  • Trial court did not err by ruling DA's expert was qualified to testify that sexual assault V could have experienced an orgasm during non-consensual oral copulation.
  • No abuse of discretion in permitting qualified solar energy forensic consultant to testify as P's expert where all matters he discussed were beyond the jury's common knowledge.
  • No abuse of discretion in allowing DA's expert to testify re reactions of developmentally disabled V to sexual advances where it was beyond jury's general knowledge and could help in evaluating V's testimony.
  • Testimony of P's expert atty properly admitted on contract issues—testimony related to customs and practices of music concert business, sufficiently beyond common experience, and admissible to assist trier of fact.
  • Where medical procedure not a matter of common knowledge, res ipsa instruction inappropriate and expert testimony necessary to determine deviation from standard of care and probability of negligence.
  • Court erred in prohibiting treating physician from testifying as to his opinions because he hadn't reviewed all documents prior to depo—he may provide both fact and opinion testimony.
  • Expert testimony on whether video actors under age 18, based on developmental factors, properly admitted as beyond the normal experience and knowledge of the average fact finder.
  • Officer's testimony re nature of Ds' transactions and culpability sufficiently beyond common experience of trier of fact to render proper subject of expert testimony.
  • MD who was treating V could express opinion as to whether she would have contacted him "if she was still alive."
  • When trier of fact can reach same conclusion based on common experience and normal intelligence, expert testimony is inappropriate.


    •