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.

Traditionally, an expert was not allowed to offer an opinion on an ultimate issue to be decided by the jury. See, e.g., Washington v. United States, 390 F.2d 444 (D.C. Cir. 1967). Expert testimony regarding ultimate issues, however, is now admissible under Utah Rule of Evidence 704. This rule follows Federal Rule of Evidence 704 verbatim. This rule reads: 'Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.' Utah R. Evid. 704. See also Gaw v. State, 798 P.2d 1130 (Utah App. 1990) (noting that Utah Rule of Evidence 704 allows an expert to express opinion concerning ultimate issue in the case); 11 J. Moore & H. Bendix, Moore's Federal Practice § 704.10, at VII-64 (1989) ('Under rule 704, testimony of both lay and expert witnesses in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it 'embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.'').


The trial court's exclusion of this testimony, however, can be affirmed on the ground that it was a legal conclusion. Although Rule 704 abolishes ...

Register or login to access full content



Professors
Professionals
Students