Which statement best describes the admissibility of expert opinion testimony?

• A. It is admissible only for ultimate issues
• B. It is admissible only when it concerns non-ultimate issues
• C. It is admissible when conclusions depend on professional knowledge, and its admissibility on ultimate questions depends on whether the facts can be described to the jury and no better evidence is available
• D. It is never admissible

Answer: (C)

Expert testimony is admissible when it rests on specialized knowledge and will help the jury understand the evidence. When the expert is addressing an ultimate issue, admissibility turns on whether the conclusion comes from that professional expertise and whether the underlying facts can be described to the jury; if the facts can be explained and there’s no better (non- or less-disruptive) way to present the needed information, the expert may offer an opinion on the ultimate issue. This preserves the jury’s role while allowing the court to admit useful, reliable analysis. The other options are too restrictive or categorical: expert opinion is not limited only to ultimate issues, nor only to non-ultimate issues, and it is not never admissible.