Rule Text
Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
Amendment history: As amended, effective December 1, 1993; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012. Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
An expert witness can share their opinion in court without first walking through every fact or piece of data that led to it. This means the lawyer who calls the expert to testify does not have to build up the whole foundation before asking for the expert's conclusion. The expert can just state what they think and explain why, in a general way.
However, the other side gets a chance to dig deeper during cross-examination. If the opposing lawyer wants to know exactly what facts or data the expert relied on, they can ask for that information at that point. The judge also has the power to change this default rule and require the facts or data to come out earlier if needed.
Committee Notes
Committee commentary. — The language of Rule 11-705 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
The committee deleted all reference to an "inference" on the grounds that the deletion made the rule flow better and easier to read, and because any "inference" is covered by the broader term "opinion." Courts have not made substantive decisions on the basis of any distinction between an opinion and an inference. No change in current practice is intended.
