Opinion ID: 2582660
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Helpfulness

Text: Under Alaska Rule of Evidence 702 scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge may be heard only if it will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. [35] Under this rule, we have held that the primary criterion for determining whether a witness should be permitted to give expert testimony is whether the jury can receive appreciable help from this particular person on this particular subject. [36] For the same reasons that the disputed testimony was relevant, it could also be considered helpful to the trier of fact. The doctors had a broad range of experience in providing information that their patients needed. Similarly, the doctors were able to testify concerning the kinds and amount of information that they, as experienced members of their field, perceived patients to desire. The trial court could reasonably find that both sorts of testimony might help the jurors to determine whether Dr. O'Malley gave Marsingill enough information to enable her to make an informed treatment decision.