Jeff Lucas is a lawyer and surveyor in private practice in Birmingham, AL. He is an author, columnist, speaker, seminar leader and training provider. Its monthly newsletter, The Lucas Letter, focuses on legal issues and the practice of surveying. For more information, see www.lucasandcompany.com Finally, I would like to say that rule 704(b) is an unnecessary addition to the rules of evidence. Judges may rely on other rules of evidence to minimize jury confusion and ensure that expert testimony supports the trier of fact. As with other types of evidence, it is at the discretion of the judge to exclude expert testimony if it is determined that its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect or that its admission would confuse the issues or result in unnecessary delays or waste of judicial resources. In fact, section 704(b), like the common law`s “ultimate question rule,” makes fact-finding experts less useful because it encourages indirect and incomplete testimony. It obscures a clear summary from the psychiatric point of view and favors the form of expression on the substance. In the end, the rule simply ignores the principle that the touchstone of the law of evidence is utility. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the confused spectacle of competing experts leading to directly contradictory conclusions on the point of law that will ultimately be identified by the General Court. Apparently, the first appellate decision that allowed an expert to comment on the latter issue was rendered by the Iowa Supreme Court in 1942 in Grismore v. Consolidated Products Company.5 A turkey farmer wanted to raise his turkeys faster, and he gave in to a food business salesman`s sales pitch. The magic feed was called “e-emulsion” and the turkey farmer contracted quantities of it, which he gave to a large number of healthy poultry.

Although the farmer was assisted by the seller in properly administering the feed, turkeys died in large numbers well before their normal execution date. Legal action was then filed. There was no doubt that the turkeys were dead. The only question the jury had to decide was what caused the deaths. The trial court allowed the turkey farmer`s lawyer to essentially ask a turkey farmer what he said caused the turkey`s death. There have been strong objections to this issue. The court held that the jury should know what the expert thought, rejected the objections and allowed the answer. The expert then put all the blame on “E-emulsion”. On appeal, the state Supreme Court ruled in a 34-page notice that the trial court was correct in admitting the testimony.

Six high-profile case law cases were annulled by roll appeal and an infinite number of decisions were implicitly overturned. While the testimony of a layman or expert for a number of reasons (e.g., relevance, prejudice or lack of personal knowledge), Rule 704 makes it clear that a statement of opinion is not objectionable simply because it deals with a “final issue” that the trial judge must decide, such as whether an element of the offence has been proved. See G.S. 8C-704. Compare State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749 (1986) (the expert opinion of an arsonist in a murder case that a flammable liquid burned on the floor and “ran” to the kitchen was not contestable, since it was an ultimate question of causation to be decided by the jury) with State v. Elkins, 210 N.C. App. 110 (2011) (the officer`s statement about the laymen in the form of an allegation, The fact that the accused “was in fact the author in this case” was an error because it did not help the jury – the statement was “only an opinion on the final question of the accused`s guilt”). However, as a result of the Hinckley trial, section 704(b) was inserted in 1984, according to which the expert may testify only about the mental illness or lack of mind of the accused and the characteristics of such a state and cannot draw any conclusion as to whether this condition rendered the accused incapable of judging nature. the quality or illegality of his act.

The provision prohibits “an opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the accused had the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or a defence to it.” According to the amended rule (which has also been adopted in most states), the latter is a “final question” that must be decided solely by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented. Prior to the adoption of the rules of procedure, there was no uniform standard. Since then, and according to unofficial reports, between 42 and 44 states (perhaps more) have adopted the rules as their own, with and without varying degrees of change. For practical reasons, the Rules of Procedure have now taken over and, in a general discussion of the rules of evidence (as now), it is generally not necessary to refer to a particular judicial authority. The rule is therefore that expert opinions on the nature of a defendant`s mental illness or disability and its typical effects on a person`s mental state are admissible. In United States v. Davis,7 the defendant who attempted to establish a senseless defence based on multiple personality disorder contradicted a government expert`s statement that such a disorder in itself does not indicate that a person does not understand what he or she is doing.