Opinion ID: 1993367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Ultimate Issue:

Text: Another point raised by petitioner in his claim that he has been denied due process is that in the proceedings resulting in his commitment as a defective delinquent, an expert was permitted to express an opinion on the ultimate issue, that is, whether or not he was a defective delinquent. Since the remand in this case the Court of Appeals has in three cases since Sas, upheld the validity of this procedure. Wames v. Director, 240 Md. 39, 212 A.2d 467, Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576, and Alt v. Director, 240 Md. 262, 213 A.2d 746 (1965). Also see Expert Opinion and the Ultimate Issue Doctrine, M.L.R. XXII, 32, stating: That an expert opinion may touch upon an ultimate issue apparently no longer matters., since the modern trend in Maryland and elsewhere is toward a liberalization of the opinion rule, to permit the reception of such evidence. See Shivers v. Carnaggio, 223 Md. 585, 165 A.2d 898 (1960). We can see no Federal Constitutional impediment against a State regulating the admissibility of this type of evidence.