Which objection applies when a witness offers opinion on matters requiring specialized knowledge unless the witness is an expert?

Which objection applies when a witness offers opinion on matters requiring specialized knowledge unless the witness is an expert?

• A. Lack of Personal Knowledge
• B. Argumentative
• C. Improper Opinion
• D. Narrating

Answer: (C)

When a witness who is not an expert offers an opinion on matters that require specialized knowledge, the opinion is not admissible. Lay witnesses may give opinions only if they are rationally based on the witness’s own perceptions and help the jury understand the testimony, but they cannot opine on technical or expert-level matters unless they are qualified as an expert. So, if the witness tries to state conclusions that require expertise they don’t have, you would object as improper opinion. For example, a non-expert might say they saw a car move quickly or that a person seemed drunk based on their own observation, which can be permissible lay opinion. But claiming to diagnose a mechanical defect or interpret toxicology results would require expert testimony. The other objections don’t fit as well here: lack of personal knowledge would target what the witness could possibly know from their own observations, which isn’t the central issue when the problem is the need for specialized expertise; argumentative is about the questioning strategy rather than admissibility; narrating is when the witness goes beyond answering questions to tell a story. The best fit for this situation is improper opinion.

When a witness who is not an expert offers an opinion on matters that require specialized knowledge, the opinion is not admissible. Lay witnesses may give opinions only if they are rationally based on the witness’s own perceptions and help the jury understand the testimony, but they cannot opine on technical or expert-level matters unless they are qualified as an expert. So, if the witness tries to state conclusions that require expertise they don’t have, you would object as improper opinion.

For example, a non-expert might say they saw a car move quickly or that a person seemed drunk based on their own observation, which can be permissible lay opinion. But claiming to diagnose a mechanical defect or interpret toxicology results would require expert testimony.

The other objections don’t fit as well here: lack of personal knowledge would target what the witness could possibly know from their own observations, which isn’t the central issue when the problem is the need for specialized expertise; argumentative is about the questioning strategy rather than admissibility; narrating is when the witness goes beyond answering questions to tell a story. The best fit for this situation is improper opinion.