Is an expert's opinion on an ultimate issue automatically objectionable?

• A. Yes; it is always objectionable.
• B. No; it is not automatically objectionable.
• C. Only in civil cases.
• D. Only if it directly states guilt.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that expert testimony can address the issues the jury must decide, and giving an opinion on those ultimate issues is generally allowed. Courts recognize that a specialist’s analysis can illuminate the facts in ways lay witnesses cannot, so an expert may opine on matters that are ultimately decisive for the case—such as whether the defendant had the mental state required for a crime, whether an injury was caused by a particular defect, or whether a party acted negligently in a civil dispute. The rule aims to assist the jury, not to replace its responsibility.

So this isn’t automatically objectionable. The testimony must be grounded in admissible evidence and presented in a way that helps the jury understand the facts. It is still subject to the usual limitations—the expert’s opinion must be based on reliable data, and the court can exclude testimony that would be more of a legal conclusion than a factual expert analysis.