Cal. Codes » Evidence Code / DIVISION 7. OPINION TESTIMONY AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE / CHAPTER 1. Expert and Other Opinion Testimony / ARTICLE 1. Expert and Other Opinion Testimony Generally
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 805 (2026)

Expert and Other Opinion Testimony Generally

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Testimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: People v. Xue Vang, 262 P.3d 581 (Cal. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Xue Vang, 262 P.3d 581 (Cal. 2011). · cites it 4× “" (Evid. Code, § 805; see People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.”
People v. Prunty, 355 P.3d 480 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 4× “” (Evid. Code, § 805.) A witness testifying in the form of an opinion may state on direct examination the basis for his or her opinion and a court may in its discretion require that such a witness be examined before testifying regarding “the reasons for his opinion and the…”
People v. Lindberg, 190 P.3d 664 (Cal. 2008). · cites it 2× “*49 (13) Evidence Code section 805 provides that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
People v. Johnson, 501 P.3d 651 (Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “Kilbride reviewed the records in the jury’s presence to aid the jury in its understanding of the records. His testimony did not take away the jury’s function of itself determining from the evidence whether defendant was in fact a convicted felon of the several prior offenses.”
People v. Duong, 471 P.3d 352 (Cal. 2020). “” (Evid. Code, § 805.) He further contends that Penal Code section 29, relied on by the trial court, did not apply to him.”
People v. Williams, 170 Cal. App. 4th 587 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “” However, Evidence Code section 805 provides directly to the contrary; “Testimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” (Italics added.) Similarly, the Killebrew…”
People v. Jo, 15 Cal. App. 5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “' ( Evid. Code, § 805.) However, the admissibility of opinion evidence that embraces an ultimate issue in a case does not bestow upon an expert carte blanche to express any opinion he or she wishes.”
People v. Daniels, 176 Cal. App. 4th 304 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “(Evid. Code, § 805 ["Testimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
People v. Brown, 326 P.3d 188 (Cal. 2014). “Miller’s testimony amounted to an opinion on defendant’s guilt, in particular the truth of the special circumstance allegations.”
People v. Killebrew, 103 Cal. App. 4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “(Evid. Code, § 805.) This rule, however, does not permit the expert to express any opinion he or she may have.”
People v. McDonald, 690 P.2d 709 (Cal. 1984). “) Evidence Code section 805 codifies this case law, declaring that “Testimony in the form of an opinion that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Piscitelli v. Friedenberg, 87 Cal. App. 4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “’ (Evid. Code, § 805.) However, the admissibility of opinion evidence that embraces an ultimate issue in a case does not bestow upon an expert carte blanche to express any opinion he or she wishes.”
Show all 136 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.