Opinion ID: 1601965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the court erred in allowing defendant's expert witness dr. george seiden to offer opinion testimony as to the plaintiff's appreciation of certain risks and his alleged ability to stop smoking at will.

Text: ¶ 35. Rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gatewood v. Sampson, 812 So.2d 212, 221 (Miss.2002). The Plaintiff asserts that Dr. George Seiden's expert testimony should have been excluded because he had never had any contact with Nunnally nor read any type of deposition he might have ever made and he formed an opinion about whether Nunnally could have stopped smoking whenever he chose to. She also argues that Dr. Seiden's opinion should not have been admitted because the information on which he based his opinion was never admitted and would not have been admissible. ¶ 36. Whether an expert witness is qualified to testify is within the trial court's discretion. See, Detroit Marine Eng'g v. McRee, 510 So.2d 462, 467 (Miss. 1987); Hooten v. State, 492 So.2d 948 (Miss.1986). The test is whether a witness possesses peculiar knowledge or information regarding the relevant subject matter which is not likely to be possessed by a layman. See also May v. State, 524 So.2d 957, 963 (Miss.1988); McRee, 510 So.2d at 467; Henry v. State, 484 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Miss.1986). There was no abuse of discretion in allowing Dr. Seiden to testify concerning Nunnally's ability to quit smoking. ¶ 37. M.R.E. 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. ¶ 38. M.R.E. 703 clearly states that experts can base their testimony on facts or data that need not be admissible in evidence. [F]orensic psychiatry is recognized as a proper field of expertise.... May, 524 So.2d at 963. ¶ 39. Dr. Seiden was clearly established as a seasoned expert in the fields of psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Dr. Seiden testified that he based his scientific opinion on deposition testimony of [Nunnally's] wife, his mother, his father, his siblings, his friends from childhood, his friends from school and his adult life, teachers at various stages in his life. Physicians who treated him, and then ... also reviewed the medical records of the physicians who treated him. Dr. Seiden explained how he took this information he had gathered and formed an opinion by applying the background education, experience with other smokers and addicts of other substances and his knowledge of addictions. ¶ 40. Because M.R.E. 703 allows an expert to form an opinion on facts or data that is inadmissible and that forensic psychiatry has been recognized as a proper field of expertise we find that no error was committed by the trial court in allowing Dr. Seiden to form an opinion on whether Nunnally could have stopped smoking at any time.