Testimony regarding whether injuries were accidental admissible.

- In the defendants' murder trial in which the defendants claimed a shooting was accidental as the parties struggled, because the medical examiner's testimony that the victim's injuries were inconsistent with an accidental shooting did not opine as to the defendants' mental intent for any crime or defense, there was no violation of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-704, and because the examiner's opinion was based on the examiner's specialized knowledge and training, O.C.G.A. § 24-7-707, any objection would have been meritless. Eller v. State, 303 Ga. 373, 811 S.E.2d 299 (2018).

Testimony on nature of victim's injuries.

- Although the defendant argued that the testimonies of the experts at a minimum injected the impermissible inference that the defendant caused the 18-month-old child's injuries intentionally, that was simply not the case because the expert's testimony concerned the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim, not the mental state of the defendant; whether the accused committed an intentional act to harm the victim is a different question than whether someone likely committed an intentional act to harm the victim. Wade v. State, 304 Ga. 5, 815 S.E.2d 875 (2018).

Fire marshall's testimony regarding arson.

- After being qualified as an expert witness, the fire marshal's testimony that the fire at the victims' residence was intentionally set did not invade the province of the jury in deciding whether the defendant had committed arson because the testimony did not address other elements of the crime of arson or directly implicate the defendant as the perpetrator of that crime; and the conclusion that the fire was intentionally set was not one jurors would ordinarily be able to draw for themselves. Saffold v. State, 298 Ga. 643, 784 S.E.2d 365 (2016).

Detective's testimony regarding venue and shooting.

- Detective's answers to the defendant's questions regarding the surveillance recording of the shooting did not violate the ultimate issue rule, and the defendant could not show harm because evidence of the defendant's guilt was compelling; and the defendant could not show that the complained-of comments likely affected the outcome of the defendant's trial as, although it might have been improper for the detective to share the detective's subjective belief that the defendant was the shooter seen on the surveillance recording with the jury explicitly, that the detective believed the defendant was the shooter seen on the surveillance recording would have come as no surprise to the jury. Thompson v. State, Ga. , 816 S.E.2d 646 (2018).

Psychologist opinion testimony on ultimate issue properly admitted.

- In a case terminating the mother's parental rights, the clinical psychologist's testimony regarding the psychologist's bonding evaluation on the child was properly admitted because the psychologist, who was tendered as an expert on child psychology and attachment and bonding without objection, explained that the psychologist formed the psychologist's opinions based on an interview, observation, and testing; the psychologist testified that the methods the psychologist used and the information the psychologist gathered were of the type regularly used by others in the psychologist's profession; and the psychologist's opinion was not objectionable on the grounds that the opinion embraced an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. In the Interest of R. S. T., 345 Ga. App. 300, 812 S.E.2d 614 (2018).

Cited in State v. Cooper, 324 Ga. App. 32, 749 S.E.2d 35 (2013); Dority v. State, 335 Ga. App. 83, 780 S.E.2d 129 (2015).