FIRSTREGULARSESSION
HOUSEBILLNO.263
103RDGENERALASSEMBLY
INTRODUCEDBYREPRESENTATIVEHOVIS.
0145H.01I DANARADEMANMILLER,ChiefClerk
ANACT
Torepealsection490.065,RSMo,andtoenactinlieuthereofonenewsectionrelatingto
expertwitnesses.
BeitenactedbytheGeneralAssemblyofthestateofMissouri,asfollows:
SectionA.Section490.065,RSMo,isrepealedandonenewsectionenactedinlieu
2thereof,tobeknownassection490.065,toreadasfollows:
490.065.1.Inactionsbroughtunderchapter451,452,453,454,or455orinactions
2adjudicatedinjuvenilecourtsunderchapter211orinfamilycourtsunderchapter487,orin
3allproceedingsbeforetheprobatedivisionofthecircuitcourt,orinallactionsorproceedings
4inwhichthereisnorighttoajurytrial:
5 (1)Ifscientific,technicalorotherspecializedknowledgewillassistthetrieroffactto
6understandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertby
7knowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationmaytestifytheretointheformofan
8opinionorotherwise;
9 (2)Testimonybysuchanexpertwitnessintheformofanopinionorinference
10otherwiseadmissibleisnotobjectionablebecauseitembracesanultimateissuetobedecided
11bythetrieroffact;
12 (3)Thefactsordatainaparticularcaseuponwhichanexpertbasesanopinionor
13inferencemaybethoseperceivedbyormadeknowntohimatorbeforethehearingandmust
14beofatypereasonablyrelieduponbyexpertsinthefieldinformingopinionsorinferences
15uponthesubjectandmustbeotherwisereasonablyreliable;
16 (4)Ifareasonablefoundationislaid,anexpertmaytestifyintermsofopinionor
17inferenceandgivethereasonsthereforwithouttheuseofhypotheticalquestions,unlessthe
EXPLANATION—Matterenclosedinbold-facedbrackets[thus] intheabovebillisnotenactedandis
intendedtobeomittedfromthelaw.Matterinbold-facetypeintheabovebillisproposedlanguage. 18courtbelievestheuseofahypotheticalquestionwillmaketheexpert'sopinionmore
19understandableorofgreaterassistancetothejuryduetotheparticularfactsofthecase.
20 2.Inallactionsexceptthosetowhichsubsection1ofthissectionapplies:
21 (1)Awitnesswhoisqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,
22oreducationmaytestifyintheformofanopinionorotherwiseiftheproponent
23demonstratestothecourtthatitismorelikelythannotthat:
24 (a)Theexpert'sscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillhelpthetrier
25offacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue;
26 (b)Thetestimonyisbasedonsufficientfactsordata;
27 (c)Thetestimonyistheproductofreliableprinciplesandmethods;and
28 (d)The[experthasreliablyapplied] expert'sopinionreflectsareliableapplication
29oftheprinciplesandmethodstothefactsofthecase;
30 (2)Anexpertmaybaseanopiniononfactsordatainthecasethattheexperthasbeen
31madeawareoforpersonallyobserved.Ifexpertsintheparticularfieldwouldreasonablyrely
32onthosekindsoffactsordatainforminganopiniononthesubject,theyneednotbe
33admissiblefortheopiniontobeadmitted.Butifthefactsordatawouldotherwisebe
34inadmissible,theproponentoftheopinionmaydisclosethemtothejuryonlyiftheir
35probativevalueinhelpingthejuryevaluatetheopinionsubstantiallyoutweighstheir
36prejudicialeffect;
37 (3)(a)Anopinionisnotobjectionablejustbecauseitembracesanultimateissue.
38 (b)Inacriminalcase,anexpertwitnessshallnotstateanopinionaboutwhetherthe
39defendantdidordidnothaveamentalstateorconditionthatconstitutesanelementofthe
40crimechargedorofadefense.Thosemattersareforthetrieroffactalone;
41 (4)Unlessthecourtordersotherwise,anexpertmaystateanopinionandgivethe
42reasonsforitwithoutfirsttestifyingtotheunderlyingfactsordata.Buttheexpertmaybe
43requiredtodisclosethosefactsordataoncross-examination.
44 3.Theprovisionsofthissectionshallnotpreventaperson,partnership,association,
45orcorporation,asowner,fromtestifyingastothereasonablemarketvalueoftheowner's
46land.
âś”
HB263 2