Opinion ID: 2164543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Jacobsohn's Testimony

Text: Upon being called as a rebuttal witness by the State, Dr. Jacobsohn was questioned as to the basis for his expert opinion of defendant's mental condition. Dr. Jacobsohn, a psychiatrist, testified that he had developed his opinion in joint consultation with a clinical psychologist, Dr. Kincaid, who worked with him at the Augusta Mental Health Institute. The data they used came from police investigative reports, a preliminary psychological report prepared by a clinical psychologist employed by the Department of Mental Health and Corrections, Dr. Jacobsohn's 20-minute interview with defendant, and the results of a series of tests administered by Dr. Kincaid. Pursuant to M.R.Evid. 705(b), defense counsel objected to Dr. Jacobsohn's testimony on the grounds that he lacked a sufficient basis from his own knowledge to express an opinion and that Dr. Kincaid's testimony was necessary to verify the results of the psychological tests. In rejecting those arguments, the Superior Court justice concluded that the absence of Dr. Kincaid affected only the weight, not the admissibility, of Dr. Jacobsohn's opinion. The Superior Court justice must have determined that the facts or data relied upon by Dr. Jacobsohn were of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, M.R.Evid. 703, and that defendant failed to make out a prima facie case . . . that the expert [did] not have sufficient basis for his opinion, M.R. Evid. 705(b). We cannot say that either finding by the court was clearly erroneous. See Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 235 A.2d 295, 300 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1006, 88 S.Ct. 1249, 20 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1968); R. Field & P. Murray, Maine Evidence § 703.2 (1976). Defense counsel was allowed unlimited scope in cross-examining Dr. Jacobsohn as to the bases of his opinion, and thus had a full opportunity to discredit his testimony. See State v. Rogers, Me., 389 A.2d 36, 38 (1978); Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, supra at 301.