Court Opinion

ID: 9532288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:58.320758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:43.442313
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and all of the opinion except division III. I agree with Wigmore’s view that “[t]he hypothetical question, misused by the clumsy and abused by the clever, has in practice led to intolerable suppression of truth.” 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 686, at 812 (3d ed. 1940). I would adopt the standard delineated in Fed.R.Evid. 705:
The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
See Rabata v. Dohner, 45 Wis.2d 111, 172 N.W.2d 409 (1969); C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 36 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972): 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 705[1] (1978).
HARRIS, J., joins this special concurrence.