§ Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue

Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue

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.

Comment: Pa.R.E. 704 is substantively the same as F.R.E. 704(a) and is consistent with Pennsylvania law.F.R.E. 704(b) has not been adopted.

Under Pennsylvania law, the trial judge has discretion to allow lay opinion on the ultimate issue. The judge must balance the helpfulness of the testimony against its potential to cause confusion or prejudice. See Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa. Super. 509, 393 A.2d 941 (1978); Pa.R.E. 701 and its comment.

Pennsylvania law allows expert opinion testimony on the ultimate issue. See Commonwealth v. Daniels, 480 Pa. 340, 390 A.2d 172 (1978); Cooper v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 323 Pa. 295, 186 A.125 (1936). As with lay opinions, the trial judge has discretion to admit or exclude expert opinions on the ultimate issue depending on the helpfulness of the testimony versus its potential to cause confusion or prejudice. See Kozak v. Struth, 515 Pa. 554, 531 A.2d 420 (1987); Commonwealth v. Brown, 408 Pa. Super. 246, 596 A.2d 840 (1991).

Pa.R.E. 704 omits F.R.E. 704(b) which prohibits an expert from testifying with respect to whether the defendant in a criminal case did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. When the Superior Court in Lewis v. Mellor, adopted F.R.E. 704 in 1978, it only contained part (a).F.R.E. 704(b) was added in 1984. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently held that expert psychiatric testimony is admissible to negate the specific intent to kill which is essential to first degree murder. See Commonwealth v. Terry, 513 Pa. 381, 521 A.2d 398 (1987); Commonwealth v. Garcia, 505 Pa. 304, 479 A.2d 473 (1984); Commonwealth v. Walzack, 468 Pa. 210, 360 A.2d 914 (1976).