2017 ORS 40.420¹
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. [1981 c.892 §60]

(Rule 704)

Notes of Decisions

Although 1981 Evidence Code liberalizes admissibility of expert opinion, it does not allow opinion as to who should win, and witness should not have been permitted to give opinion as to whether or not defendants were neg­li­gent. Phomvongsa v. Phounsaveth, 72 Or App 518, 696 P2d 567 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Expert testimony which merely tells jury what legal conclusion to reach is not admissible under this rule. French v. Barrett, 84 Or App 52, 733 P2d 89 (1987)

Court did not err by permitting expert to testify on ultimate ques­tions of amount of damages. Becker v. Port Dock Four, Inc., 90 Or App 384, 752 P2d 1235 (1988)

Though it was not abuse of discre­tion to admit evidence of accident reconstruc­tion, court erred in admitting expert testimony that particular sign was substantial factor in causing accident and was inadmissible “pure opinion” on legal consequence of disputed facts which did not assist jury but instead told it to reach particular result on contested causa­tion ques­tion. DeRosa v. Kolb, 90 Or App 548, 752 P2d 1282 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

19 WLR 425 (1983)

Chapter 40

(Generally)

Notes of Decisions

General rule is that polygraph evidence is inadmissible in pro­ceed­ing governed by Oregon Evidence Code. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984)

Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992)

Where state law completely precludes reliable, ma­te­ri­ally exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitu­tion. State v. Cazares-Mendez, 233 Or App 310, 227 P3d 172 (2010), aff’d State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez, 350 Or 491, 256 P3d 104 (2011)

Oregon Evidence Code articulates min­i­mum standards of reliability that apply to many types of evidence for admissibility, including eyewitness identifica­tion evidence, and parties must employ code to address admissibility of eyewitness testimony. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012)

Law Review Cita­tions

59 OLR 43 (1980); 19 WLR 343 (1983)

Chapter 40

Evidence Code

Annota­tions are listed under the heading “Under former similar statute” if they predate the adop­tion of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982.

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 40—Evidence Code, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors040.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 40, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano040.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.