Colo. R. Evid. 705 (2026)

The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefor without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.

(Federal Rule Identical.)

Source: Entire rule amended and effective November 16, 1995.

COMMITTEE COMMENT

Although the present rule is contrary to Colo- examiner to bring out the supporting data is rado case law, the Committee believes it to be essentially unfair, the answer is that he is under the better view. The reasons for the retention of no compulsion to bring out any facts or data the proposed Federal rule as it is presently writ- except those unfavorable to the opinion. The ten are as follows. First, the rule does not dis- answer assumes that the cross-examiner has the turb the requirement for a proper foundation for advance knowledge which is essential for effecexpert opinions. City and County of Denver v. tive cross-examination. This advance knowl- Lyttle, 106 Colo. 157, 103 P.2d 1 (1940). Sec- edge has been afforded, though imperfectly, by ondly, the elimination of the requirement for the traditional foundations requirement.’’ Advipreliminary disclosure of underlying facts or sory Committee’s Notes, Proposed Federal data has the effect of reducing the need for Rules. See also, Archina v. People, 135 Colo. 8, hypothetical questions, a goal which has been 307 P.2d 1083 (1957). Finally, it is clear that sought by a number of states. Thirdly: ‘‘If the there is built-in safeguard in the discretionary objection is made that leaving it to the cross- power of the court to require prior disclosure.