Miss. R. Evid. 705
Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion - and give the reasons for it - without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
Miss. R. Evid. 705
Advisory Committee Note
The language of Rule 705 has been amended as part of the general 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 to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
All reference to an "inference" has been deleted, 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.
Rule 705 is an attempt to eliminate the use of the hypothetical question or, at the least, reduce its use. The almost universal criticism of the hypothetical question is that it is unduly complex and time-consuming. While dispensing with the requirement of preliminary disclosure at the trial of underlying facts or data, Rule 705 nonetheless offers two protections. The court may, in its discretion, require disclosure. Regardless of whether it does, the expert may still be required to state the underlying facts on cross-examination.
["Advisory Committee Note" substituted for "Comment," effective June 16, 2016; amended July 1, 2016, to note restyling.]
.