Experts Generally
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Perry, No. M2022-00643-CCA-R3-CD, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2023).
In Tennessee the qualifications, admissibility, relevancy and competency of expert testimony are matters which largely rest within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. 1993) (citing State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)). As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained:
The abuse of discretion standard does not allow the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998), and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the court “applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employ[ed] reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008); see also Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010).
Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011). Such discretion, however, is not absolute and may be overturned on appeal where the discretion is arbitrarily exercised. Id. (citing Baggett v. State, 421 S.W.2d 629, 632 (1967)).
State v. Atkins, No. E2022-01027-CCA-R3-CD, p. 23-24 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 21, 2023).
“[Q]uestions regarding the admissibility, qualifications, relevancy and competency of expert testimony are left to the discretion of the trial court.” McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263 (Tenn. 1997) (citing State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. 1993)). “A trial court should admit the testimony of a competent expert unless the party opposing the expert’s testimony shows that it will not substantially assist the trier of fact or if the facts or data on which the opinion is based are not trustworthy pursuant to Rules 702 and 703.” Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 551 (Tenn. 2011). “Generally speaking, the trial court is afforded broad discretion in resolving questions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony; in consequence, we will not overturn its ruling on appeal absent a finding that it abused its discretion.” State v. Ferrell, 277 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2009).
State v. Hardison, No. E2022-00207-CCA-R3-CD, p. 40 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2023).
Determinations regarding the qualifications, admissibility, relevance, and competence of expert testimony fall within the broad discretion of the trial court and will be overturned only for an arbitrary exercise or abuse of that discretion. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263-64 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Reynolds, No. M2022-00480-CCA-R3-CD, p. 17-18 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 6, 2023).
The admissibility of expert testimony is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and “[r]eviewing courts will not reverse a decision regarding the admission or exclusion of expert testimony unless the trial court has abused its discretion.” State v. Scott, 275 S.W.3d 395, 404 (Tenn. 2010) (citing State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247, 294 (Tenn. 2002) (appendix)); State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287, 301 (Tenn. 2007). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Scott, 275 S.W.3d at 404 (citing Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008)).
State v. Samson, No. M2022-00148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 32 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 3, 2023).
A trial court’s application of these rules to exclude expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Edison, 9 S.W.3d 75, 77 (Tenn. 1999).
Fleming v. State, No. E2022-00286-CCA-R3-PC, p. 22 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 12, 2023).
It is well-settled that “the allowance of expert testimony, the qualifications of expert witnesses, and the relevancy and competency of expert testimony are matters which rest within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6, 13 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987); see Brown, 181 S.W.3d at 275; State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002) (citations omitted).
State v. Gaul, No. E2021-00734-CCA-R3-CD, p. 30 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2023).
“Generally speaking, the trial court is afforded broad discretion in resolving questions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony; in consequence, we will not overturn its ruling on appeal absent a finding that it abused its discretion.” State v. Ferrell, 277 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2009).
State v. Strange, No. E2021-00763-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15-16 (June 27, 2022).
The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rules 702 and 703 the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. See generally McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997). Rule 702 addresses the need for expert testimony and the qualifications of the expert: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will substantially assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Tenn. R. Evid. 702. Rule 703 focuses on the reliability of expert opinion testimony. Generally, the admissibility of expert testimony is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and there can be no reversal on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion. See State v. Scott, 275 S.W.3d 395, 404 (Tenn. 2010); State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287, 301 (Tenn. 2007). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Scott, 275 S.W.3d at 404 (citing Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008)).
State v. Mustafa, No. M2020-01060-CCA-R3-CD, p. 36-37 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 23, 2022).
A defendant has “the right to present a defense[,] which includes the right to present witnesses favorable to the defense,” under both the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Brown, 29 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408 (1988); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23 (1976); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302; State v. Sheline, 955 S.W.2d 42, 47 (Tenn. 1997)). However, in presenting a defense, the defendant must still comply with the rules of procedure and evidence. State v. Flood, 219 S.W.3d 307, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302). “So long as the rules of procedure and evidence are not applied arbitrarily or disproportionately to defeat the purposes they are designed to serve, these rules do not violate a defendant’s right to present a defense.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “The facts of each case must be considered carefully to determine whether the constitutional right to present a defense has been violated by the exclusion of evidence.” This court must consider whether: “(1) the excluded evidence is critical to the defense; (2) the evidence bears sufficient indicia of reliability; and (3) the interest supporting exclusion of the evidence is substantially important.” Brown, 29 S.W.3d at 434-35 (citing Chambers, 410 U.S. at 298-301).
Expert testimony, like other evidence, must be relevant in order to be admissible. See Tenn. R. Evid. 402 (“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.”). Relevant evidence is defined as any evidence “having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. This court reviews a trial court’s decisions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence under an abuse of discretion standard, and will reverse a decision only “ ‘when the trial court applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’ ” State v. Parker, 350 S.W.3d 883, 897 (Tenn. 2011) (quoting State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90, 116 (Tenn. 2008)).
State of Tennessee v. Ward, No. W2021-00047-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 19, 2022).
Generally, the admissibility of expert testimony is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and there can be no reversal on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion. See State v. Scott, 275 S.W.3d 395, 404 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287, 301 (Tenn. 2007). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Scott, 275 S.W.3d at 404 (citing Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton County Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008)).
