Colo. R. Evid. 704 (2026)

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

(Federal Rule Identical.)

COMMITTEE COMMENT

The present Federal and Colorado rules may Northeastern Consolidated Ditch Co. v. conflict with preceding Colorado case law. Gallegos, 70 Colo. 550, 203 P. 668 (1922). (Compare Bridges v. Lintz, 140 Colo. 582, 346 There are exceptions to the rule, and the law in P.2d 571 (1959) and McNelley v. Smith, 149 Colorado can best be stated by quoting the Colo. 177, 368 P.2d 555 (1962).) It is felt that following language: ‘‘It is reversible error to the rule expresses the better alternative. The allow an opinion as to ultimate facts unless the conflict arises in the area of lay witnesses testi- witness testifies as an expert or his testimony fying as to an ultimate issue of fact. In Colo- invokes a description or estimate of condition, rado, case law says that he may testify concern- value, etc. or when it is difficult or impossible ing things which would ‘‘help’’ the jury to to state with sufficient exactness the facts and understand the facts, but he may not render an their surroundings.’’ Town of Meeker v. opinion on the ultimate fact in issue. Mogote- Fairfield, 25 Colo. App. 187, 136 P. 471 (1913).