Fla. Stat. § 90.704 — Basis of opinion testimony by experts

Original Text Simplified Text

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by, or made known to, the expert at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible may not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.

The Building Blocks of an Expert Opinion: This statute defines what an expert can use as the basis for their opinion testimony. Unlike lay witnesses who are limited to personal knowledge, experts can draw from a wider range of information.

An expert can base their opinion on information from three sources:

  • Personal Perception: Facts the expert personally saw, heard, or observed (e.g., a doctor who examined the patient).
  • Trial Evidence: Information made known to the expert during the trial, such as by listening to other testimony or being asked a hypothetical question.
  • Information Reasonably Relied Upon by Other Experts: This is the most significant source. An expert can rely on facts or data that may not be admissible in court (like hearsay), as long as it is the type of information that experts in their specific field normally rely on to do their jobs.

Example: A doctor can form an opinion about a patient's condition by relying on hospital charts, nurses' notes, and lab reports, even though those documents are technically hearsay and may not be admissible on their own.

A Key Limitation: While an expert can *rely* on inadmissible data, the lawyer who called the expert cannot automatically tell the jury about that inadmissible data. It can only be disclosed to the jury if the judge finds that its value in helping the jury understand the expert's opinion substantially outweighs its potential for prejudice.