Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): [¶ 39.] Veith did not object to Dr. O’Brien calling Dr. Gilbert as a treating physician to testify to the treatment that he provided Veith. However, Veith did object when Dr. Gilbert testified to a matter about which he had no record in his patient notes — bile reflux, or the lack thereof. Because there was no mention of bile reflux in Dr. Gilbert’s patient notes, Veith argues that Dr. Gilbert’s testimony on this subject constituted expert testimony by a previously undisclosed expert and as such the trial court abused its discretion by its admittance. [¶ 40.] Previously undisclosed expert testimony to a matter about which the expert has no knowledge, but is instead based on his own perceptions has been held to be inadmissible. State v. Andrews, 2001 SD 31, ¶¶ 18-19, 623 N.W.2d 78, 83 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 41.] In Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Elec. Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was error to allow a police officer who was admitted as a lay witness after a prosecution motion to admit him as an expert was denied for lack of timeliness to give testimony as to a matter about which he had no personal knowledge (B) holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance (C) holding that agent who interpreted the conversations based on personal knowledge as opposed to his general involvement in the investigation gave permissible lay witness testimony (D) holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood (E) holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted
Output (English): holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance