CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Opinion & Scientific Evidence
......Expert Testimony: In General
.........Expert Not Needed or Permitted
............Common Knowledge
 18 Cards On This Topic:
  • Expert testimony not required where professional negligence so obvious that can be evaluated by lay persons resorting to common experience.
  • Admitting unneeded expert testimony of Director of Mail Analysis that D's letter to President would have been considered a threat by the White House mail office was harmless error.
  • No abuse of discretion in not admitting proffered expert testimony where it went to largely irrelevant points and would not assist jury in determining fact in issue.
  • No abuse of discretion in excluding expert opinion testimony of social work prof. on the ground the jury did not need the opinion to assist it in deciding whether D’s childhood could have affected his behavior as an adult.
  • Error to grant nonsuit where jury did not need expert testimony to decide whether Os used excessive force on P during dispute over custody order violation.
  • Expert's testimony usurped jury's role where test of reasonableness of D's conduct in shooting intruders was an objective one for the jury, and it was as competent as E to evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions.
  • Expert testimony not needed to prove D's sexual abuse of minor C was likely to cause great bodily harm where jury could infer such based on her age, physical development, and the large dildos used on her.
  • Question of nurse's alleged negligence for unattended patient's fall is a question of common knowledge and does not require expert opinion testimony.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting O's testimony on stun gun M used where DA never asked O to be qualified as an expert, sufficient foundation laid, and O's testimony clearly regarding area beyond common experience.
  • Factfinders require no expert testimony to ascertain a psychotherapist's actual belief or prediction a patient poses risk of grave bodily injury on identifiable V.
  • Defense expert's proposed testimony, little more than expert opinion as to V's credibility, properly excluded as jurors generally equipped to judge witness credibility without need for expert testimony.
  • Prejudicial error to admit expert's testimony on "hedonic" damages for loss of enjoyment of life in auto PI case.
  • Expert not permitted where matter within common experience of jurors.
  • When witness' expertise adds nothing to evidence, improper to admit opinion interpreting it; jury fully capable of doing so itself.
  • Expert's mock lineup experiment would not provide jurors with anything not in their expertise; court properly limited E's testimony to general factors.
  • Expert testimony not required in professional negligence case where facts sufficient for jury to determine from common knowledge that D breached duty to P.
  • Standard of care re professional must be based upon expert testimony, unless conduct involved within common knowledge of laymen.
  • Cases discussing various aspects of proffered expert testimony being excluded as within common knowledge.


    •