60-458. Expert opinion or inference; facts or data relied upon, admissibility. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible into evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that the probative value of such facts or data in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-458; L. 2014, ch. 84, ยง 4; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Expertise: The Expert and the Learned Treatise," Edward G. Collister, Jr., 17 K.L.R. 167, 171 (1968).
"Lost Profits and Hadley v. Baxendale," Wyatt McDowell Wright, 19 W.L.J. 488, 510 (1980).
"Expert Testimony in Products Liability," Lynn R. Johnson, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 22, 23 (1980).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Considered in stating test of competency of expert witness. Casey v. Phillips Pipeline Co., 199 Kan. 538, 546, 431 P.2d 518.
2. No requirement that questions of expert witness be hypothetical if facts are presented to him in an acceptable manner. Howard v. Stoughton, 199 Kan. 787, 790, 433 P.2d 567; Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 Kan. 350, 356, 357, 437 P.2d 219.
3. Expert witness having no personal knowledge of facts may be required to be questioned in hypothetical form. Staudinger v. Sooner Pipe & Supply Corporation, 208 Kan. 101, 106, 490 P.2d 619.
4. Foundational facts necessary to support expert opinion testimony satisfied on redirect and recross examinations. Zeigler v. Crofoot, 213 Kan. 480, 484, 485, 486, 516 P.2d 954.
5. Expert opinions by psychiatrists couched in conclusionary terms may, on cross-examination, be open to data on which such opinions were based. State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 442, 532 P.2d 1309.
6. Construed with K.S.A. 60-456(b); opinion of expert witness admissible in prosecution for violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a. State v. Brooks, 217 Kan. 485, 486, 536 P.2d 1365.
7. Applied in determining exclusion of expert testimony in medical malpractice action error. Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital, 223 Kan. 1, 6, 574 P.2d 136.
8. No requirement that questions of expert witness be hypothetical if facts are presented to him in an acceptable manner. Plains Transp. of Kan. v. King, 224 Kan. 17, 21, 578 P.2d 1095.
9. Evidence may be admissible hereunder where inadmissible under K.S.A. 60-455; cross-examination of expert witness held proper. State v. Dargatz, 228 Kan. 322, 331, 614 P.2d 430.
10. Expert witness may be examined on facts upon which expert opinion is based. State v. Garcia, 233 Kan. 589, 599, 664 P.2d 1343 (1983).
11. Testimony by expert based partially on defendant's statements in psychiatric evaluation held not hearsay. State v. Kaiser, 260 Kan. 235, 260, 918 P.2d 629 (1996).
|
|