Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065 (2026)

Expert witness, opinion testimony admissible, requirements for certain actions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

490.065. Expert witness, opinion testimony admissible, requirements for certain actions. — 1. In actions brought under chapter 451, 452, 453, 454, or 455 or in actions adjudicated in juvenile courts under chapter 211 or in family courts under chapter 487, or in all proceedings before the probate division of the circuit court, or in all actions or proceedings in which there is no right to a jury trial:

(1) If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise;

(2) Testimony by such an expert witness 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;

(3) The facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reasonably reliable;

(4) If a reasonable foundation is laid, an expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give the reasons therefor without the use of hypothetical questions, unless the court believes the use of a hypothetical question will make the expert's opinion more understandable or of greater assistance to the jury due to the particular facts of the case.

2. In all actions except those to which subsection 1 of this section applies:

(1) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case;

(2) An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect;

(3) (a) An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.

(b) In a criminal case, an expert witness shall not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone;

(4) Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion and give the reasons for it without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.

3. The provisions of this section shall not prevent a person, partnership, association, or corporation, as owner, from testifying as to the reasonable market value of the owner's land.

--------

(L. 1989 S.B. 127, et al., A.L. 2017 H.B. 153)

(2003) Section sets forth standard of admissibility of expert testimony in civil cases, including contested case administrative proceedings. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 219 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Bd. of Reg. for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 152× “While Lasky did not further expressly state that to the extent that prior civil cases applied a different rule they should no longer be followed, such a holding was implicit in Lasky 's direction that "on remand the trial court shall be guided by section 490.065, RSMo, in…”

Care & Treatment of Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. 2017). · cites it 14× “Kircher’s opinion was inadmissible under section 490.065. Questions as to the proper interpretation of section 490.”

Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. 2010). · cites it 20× “[2] Section 490.065, RSMo 2000, specifically governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony, and it states that a witness may be qualified as an expert by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

Rafael Lozano v. BNSF Ry. Co., 421 S.W.3d 448 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 22× “A de novo review was appropriate in Kivland only because the Court was reviewing the lower court’s construction of section 490.065, RSMo 2000, not because all evidentiary rulings regarding expert testimony are necessarily questions of law.”

Powel v. Chaminade Coll. Preparatory, Inc., 197 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 16× “The circuit court could exclude the expert's opinion in the affidavit under the standard for admissibility governed by section 490.065. Because Powel's deposition testimony contradicts the expert's factual basis for his opinion, the proposed purported expert testimony fails two…”

Hawthorne v. Lester E. Cox Med. Centers, 165 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “Myers should be stricken because his testimony does not qualify as expert testimony pursuant to section 490.065 RSMo. The Commission rejected the argument on the ground that Cox waived any such objection to the admissibility of Dr.”

Goddard v. State, 144 S.W.3d 848 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 22× “” He insists that admission of this evidence violated section 490.065, the statute governing expert testimony in civil cases.”

State v. Wright, 562 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “Amendments to Section 490.065 The standards governing the admissibility of expert opinions in criminal cases recently changed in Missouri with the amendment of Section 490.”

Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “Sero's theory was premised upon facts or data not reasonably relied upon by experts in the automotive electrical engineering field to form opinions or inferences upon the subject, which is required by section 490.065 governing admission of expert witness opinion testimony.”

Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Grp., LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299 (Mo. 2011). · cites it 10× “If the jury were to believe these opinions, it could find that Kivland’s death was the direct result of Dr. Gaines’ negligence.”

Hill v. City of St. Louis, 371 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “, to testify as an *73 expert witness because (1) the field of history is outside the scope of section 490.065, and her opinion testimony invaded the province of the jury because she did not provide scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge to assist the jury with…”

Scott v. Blue Springs Ford Sales, Inc., 215 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “In Point II, it claims that the trial court erred in allowing, over its objection, Scott’s expert testimony regarding safety issues concerning the Explorer, because the mandates of § 490.065, governing the admission of expert testimony, were not satisfied.”

Show all 219 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065(2) — 1 case

Shannon Dugan v. Hyatt Corp. d/b/a Hyatt Regency St. Louis at the Arch (Mo. Ct. App. 2024).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.065(3) — 9 cases

Whitnell v. State, 129 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Wulfing v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

State Ex Rel. Crown Power & Equip. Co., LLC v. Ravens, 309 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. 2009).

Leake v. Burlington N. R.R., 892 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

McBride v. Farley, 154 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

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.