Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The determination of whether a witness is qualified rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such a determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Evans (1991), 247 Mont. 218, 228-29, 806 P.2d 512, 519. The degree or extent of a witnesses' qualifications affects the weight of the expert's testimony, not its admissibility. Evans, 806 P.2d at 519. citing, State v. Martin (1987), 226 Mont. 463, 736 P.2d 477. Furthermore, cross-examination is the shield to guard against unwarranted opinions. Evans, 806 P.2d at 519, citing, Stewart v. Casey (1979), 182 Mont. 185, 193, 595 P.2d 1176, 1180.

A federal appeals court reviews a district court's decision to exclude expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard,' United States v. Welch, 945 F.2d 1378, 1381 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 117 L. Ed. 2d 469, 112 S. Ct. 1235 (1992), and that the trial court's 'determination will be affirmed unless it is 'manifestly erroneous,'' Carroll v. Otis Elevator Company, 896 F.2d 210, 212 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Bob Willow Motors Inc. v. General Motors, 872 F.2d 788, 797 (7th Cir. 1989)).


Register or login to access full content