Opinion ID: 2518840
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Hearsay and opinion testimony at trial

Text: Alyssa also contends that the court wrongly allowed the state's witnesses to provide hearsay and opinion testimony at the termination trial. This section of Alyssa's brief consists of two sentences and provides no citations to the trial log notes for examples of impermissible hearsay or opinion testimony. Given Alyssa's failure to identify any inadmissible hearsay, the state plausibly suggests that Alyssa objects to the testimony of the department's expert psychologist, Dr. Michael Rose. Dr. Rose testified after reviewing various records that, in his opinion, Alyssa suffered from severe psychological problems, and awarding custody to her would place Jaclyn at risk of harm. The state argues that Dr. Rose was qualified to offer his opinion as an expert in clinical psychology; it points out that Dr. Rose testified that it was customary for an expert in his field to rely on the types of documents he used in forming his opinion. Accordingly, the state contends, his testimony was explicitly allowed under Evidence Rules 702 and 703. [45] The state's position has merit. Under Evidence Rules 702 and 703, Dr. Rose's testimony did not involve inadmissible hearsay  it was admissible as expert scientific opinion. Because Alyssa identifies no other evidence addressed in her hearsay claim, we conclude that her claim lacks merit.