Opinion ID: 657832
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony Re Professional Standards of Conduct

Text: 53 Vaughn and Castle Rock contend that the district court improperly allowed Huson's law enforcement expert to testify that Vaughn recklessly and intentionally disregarded professional standards in conducting his investigation of the theft. [ER 73-75] 54 This argument is without merit. That Vaughn acted recklessly and intentionally were ultimate issues to be decided by the jury. As noted above, Rule 704 permits expert opinion testimony on such ultimate issues. Moreover, Rule 702 permits expert opinion testimony comparing the conduct of the parties to the industry standard. See Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1484-85 (9th Cir.) (admission of opinion testimony of an expert--the same one involved in this case--on the issue of recklessness was not an abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 275 (1991). The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the expert testimony. 55