Rule 704 Opinion on ultimate issue.
Rule Text
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.
Amendment history: Laws 1975, LB 279, § 52.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Witnesses, including expert witnesses, are allowed to give opinions that touch on the main question the judge or jury needs to decide. In the past, some courts blocked this kind of testimony because it seemed like the witness was trying to answer the case's central question for the jury. This rule removes that objection.
So if a witness has an opinion that relates directly to what the jury must decide, they can still share it, as long as the opinion is allowed under the other evidence rules. For example, a doctor could testify that in their opinion a person was not able to understand their actions at the time of an incident, even though that question relates directly to a legal issue in the case. The jury still gets to decide how much weight to give that opinion, and they are not required to agree with it.
This rule does not mean every opinion automatically comes into evidence. The testimony still has to meet other requirements, like being based on the witness's knowledge or expertise. It simply means an opinion cannot be thrown out just because it lines up closely with the final issue the jury has to resolve.
Committee Notes
This section abolished the "ultimate issue" rule in Nebraska. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
This section abolished the "ultimate issue" rule in Nebraska. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, a witness may not give an opinion as to how the case should be decided, but, rather, must leave the conclusions to be drawn by the trier of fact, because such opinions are not helpful. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, a witness may not give an opinion as to how the case should be decided, but, rather, must leave the conclusions to be drawn by the trier of fact, because such opinions are not helpful. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
The "ultimate issue rule," which prohibited witnesses from giving opinions or conclusions on an ultimate fact in issue because such testimony, it was believed, usurps the function or invades the province of the jury, was abolished in Nebraska by this section. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
The "ultimate issue rule," which prohibited witnesses from giving opinions or conclusions on an ultimate fact in issue because such testimony, it was believed, usurps the function or invades the province of the jury, was abolished in Nebraska by this section. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
An otherwise admissible expert's opinion is not objectionable because the opinion embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990); State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976).
An otherwise admissible expert's opinion is not objectionable because the opinion embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990); State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976).
This section must be read in conjunction with sections 27-702, and 27-401 to 27-403, for this section does not render all expert testimony admissible. Under this section, the test is not whether the expert's opinion or inference invades the province of the jury, but whether the opinion or inference is otherwise admissible and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue under section 27-702. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990).
This section must be read in conjunction with sections 27-702, and 27-401 to 27-403, for this section does not render all expert testimony admissible. Under this section, the test is not whether the expert's opinion or inference invades the province of the jury, but whether the opinion or inference is otherwise admissible and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue under section 27-702. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990).
Auto manufacturer's expert witness entitled to present illustrative experiment and to testify regarding an ultimate issue of fact. Shover v. General Motors Corp., 198 Neb. 470, 253 N.W.2d 299 (1977).
Auto manufacturer's expert witness entitled to present illustrative experiment and to testify regarding an ultimate issue of fact. Shover v. General Motors Corp., 198 Neb. 470, 253 N.W.2d 299 (1977).
Possible modification of rule relating to opinion of investigator as to point of impact discussed but not applied retrospectively. Rawlings v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 686, 240 N.W.2d 568 (1976).
Possible modification of rule relating to opinion of investigator as to point of impact discussed but not applied retrospectively. Rawlings v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 686, 240 N.W.2d 568 (1976).
View Statute 27-703
Chapter 27 Index
View Statute27-705