Ariz. R. Evid. 704

As amended through August 22, 2024

Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue

(a)In General--Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.

(b)Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.

Ariz. R. Evi. 704

Amended Sept. 8, 2011, effective 1/1/2012.

COMMENT TO 2012 AMENDMENT

Subsection (b) has been added to conform to Federal Rule of Evidence 704, which was amended in 1984 to add comparable language. The new language in the Arizona rule is considered to be consistent with current Arizona law.

Additionally, the language of Rule 704 has been amended to conform to the federal restyling of the Evidence Rules 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 in the restyling to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

The Court deleted the 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.

COMMENT TO ORIGINAL 1977 RULE

Some opinions on ultimate issues will be rejected as failing to meet the requirement that they assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Witnesses are not permitted as experts on how juries should decide cases.

HISTORICAL NOTE

Source:

Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 704.