Which objection is proper when a witness not qualified as an expert testifies that injuries caused a death?

Which objection is proper when a witness not qualified as an expert testifies that injuries caused a death?

• A. Improper Opinion
• B. Leading Question
• C. Hearsay
• D. Relevance

Answer: (A)

The main issue is that a non-expert witness may not give opinions that require specialized knowledge, such as causation of death. When a witness who isn’t qualified as an expert testifies that injuries caused a death, they are offering a medical conclusion beyond what a lay observer can reliably state. Such testimony is not permissible as lay opinion, so the proper objection is improper opinion. Leading questions, hearsay, and relevance aren’t the fit objections here. A leading question is about how the question was asked, not about the witness’s qualifications or the substance of their opinion. Hearsay would apply to out-of-court statements being offered for truth, which isn’t the focus if the witness is simply giving their own perception. Relevance is important, but the core issue is admissibility of the opinion itself; the witness’s lack of qualifications makes the opinion improper.

The main issue is that a non-expert witness may not give opinions that require specialized knowledge, such as causation of death. When a witness who isn’t qualified as an expert testifies that injuries caused a death, they are offering a medical conclusion beyond what a lay observer can reliably state. Such testimony is not permissible as lay opinion, so the proper objection is improper opinion.

Leading questions, hearsay, and relevance aren’t the fit objections here. A leading question is about how the question was asked, not about the witness’s qualifications or the substance of their opinion. Hearsay would apply to out-of-court statements being offered for truth, which isn’t the focus if the witness is simply giving their own perception. Relevance is important, but the core issue is admissibility of the opinion itself; the witness’s lack of qualifications makes the opinion improper.