Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting contested expert testimony on the valuation of a privately owned, public utility.

Text: ¶ 8. This Court has stated that: [w]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to allow or disallow evidence, including expert testimony, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. Canadian Nat'l/Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Hall, 953 So.2d 1084, 1094 (Miss.2007). Unless this Court concludes that a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, that decision will stand. Irby v. Travis, 935 So.2d 884, 912 (Miss.2006). Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702, trial courts are charged with being gatekeepers in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony. Id. We are confident that our learned trial judges can and will properly assume the role as gatekeeper on questions of admissibility of expert testimony. Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 40 (Miss.2003). Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So.2d 143, 145-46 (Miss.2008). ¶ 9. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 provides that: [i]f 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, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Miss. R. Evid. 702. This rule makes it necessary for a trial court to apply a two-pronged inquiry when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) is the witness qualified, and (2) is the testimony relevant and reliable? Watts, 990 So.2d at 146 (citing McLemore, 863 So.2d at 35).