Opinion ID: 2633411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: bolstering of testimony

Text: ¶ 30 Green argues error occurred when Louder's expert was permitted to testify that Green's own expert agreed with his calculations. We have held that trial courts have discretion in determining whether specific testimony offered by an expert should be allowed.... Randle, 862 P.2d at 1337. ¶ 31 At trial, Duvall, Louder's expert, testified that at the moment of impact Louder was traveling 18.8 miles per hour and Murray was traveling 38 miles per hour. When defense counsel asked if he had review[ed] any information which confirmed [his] estimates as to speed, Duvall answered [w]ell I did. Even the plaintiff's expert reviewed my calculations and mentioned in his.... [7] Before Duvall could finish his statement, Green's counsel objected on the ground that it is inappropriate for an expert to bolster [his] own testimony by an outside expert's conclusion. ¶ 32 The trial court heard arguments regarding this issue the following morning. Green's counsel argued that under rule 32 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, [8] the deposition of a witness may be used for impeachment purposes, but not to bolster the testimony of the opposing party's expert. In response, Louder's counsel argued that by its express language rule 32 is subject to rule 703 [9] of the Utah Rules of Evidence, which allows an expert, once foundation has been laid and his opinion has been given, to be questioned regarding the basis of those opinions. The court then ruled as follows: [U]nder 703[and] 704 reference can be made to a deposition by an expert witness. The intent of 703 and 704 is to allow an expert witness to explain the basis of his opinion on matters that are usually inadmissible.... [u]nder 704 he is allowed to... render his opinion on the ultimate issue ... [but] he cannot use what he used as a reference to bolster [his ultimate opinion] because that goes to the truth of the matter asserted. When Duvall was recalled as a witness, he was asked again, [w]hat evidence did you find that confirmed your time/distance analysis? The court overruled Green's objection and Duvall responded, Mr. Probert's deposition. ¶ 33 Green argues that this testimony violates the holding in State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388, 392 (Utah 1989), which precludes a witness from being an oath-helper; in other words, from testifying as to the truthfulness of another witness's testimony. In Rimmasch we held that rule 608(a)(1) bars admission of an expert's testimony as to the truthfulness of a witness on a particular occasion. Id. In that case we concluded the expert's testimony, setting forth the reasons why she thought the daughter was telling the truth, elicited a direct opinion on the daughter's truthfulness at the time she made her allegations of abuse. Id. at 393. That holding has no application here. Duvall testified that Probert's opinion in his deposition confirmed or corroborated his own conclusions. However, the contents of the deposition were not used; no inquiry was made regarding the veracity of Probert's deposition testimony. Veracity (as opposed to accuracy) was not at issue, nor was this a case of oath-helping. The admission of Duvall's testimony was not an abuse of discretion.