Md. R. Evid. 5-703

As amended through October 15, 2024

Rule 5-703 - Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

(a) Admissibility of Opinion. An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If the court finds on the record that experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.

(b) If Facts or Data Inadmissible. If the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury over objection only if the court finds on the record that their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

(c) Instruction to Jury. If facts or data not admissible in evidence are disclosed to the jury under this Rule, the court, upon request, shall instruct the jury to use those facts and data only for the purpose of evaluating the validity and probative value of the expert's opinion or inference.

(d) Right to Challenge Expert. This Rule does not limit the right of an opposing party to cross-examine an expert witness or to test the basis of the expert's opinion or inference.

Md. R. Evid. 5-703

Sections (a) and (b) of this Rule are derived from F.R.Ev. 703. Sections (c) and (d) are derived from Ky.R.Ev. 703(b) and (c).

Adopted Dec. 15, 1993, eff. 7/1/1994. Amended May 15, 2019, eff. 7/1/2019.

VALIDITY

< For validity of section, see Derr v. State, 422 Md. 211, 29 A.3d 533.>

HISTORICAL NOTES

2019 Orders

The May 15, 2019 order changed the title consistent with Fed. R. Evid. 703, deleted current section (a), added new sections (a) and (b) based on Fed. R. Evid. 703, replaced the current Committee note with a new Committee note, and made stylistic changes.

Committee note: This Rule is derived from Fed. R. Evid. 703, except that it clarifies that the court must make the requisite findings on the record, which the Court, in Lamalfa v. Hearn, 457 Md. 350 (2018) declared to be a "best practice. Disclosure of inadmissible evidence to a jury is an exception to the normal rule, and if a timely objection is made, the proponent should have the burden of convincing the judge that the conditions stated in the Rule are satisfied, and the judge should make that finding on the record so that, in the event of an appeal, the appellate court will have a basis to review the trial court's decision. An appellate court may find that the failure to make timely objection constitutes a waiver.