Wis. Stat. § 907.03
Bases of opinion testimony by experts
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
907.03907.03 Bases of opinion testimony by experts. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible may not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion or inference substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
907.03 AnnotationThe trial court properly admitted the opinion of a qualified electrical engineer although he relied on a pamphlet objected to as inadmissible hearsay. E.D. Wesley Co. v. City of New Berlin, 62 Wis. 2d 668, 215 N.W.2d 657 (1974).
907.03 AnnotationA chiropractor could testify as to a patient’s self-serving statements when those statements were used to form his medical opinion. Klingman v. Kruschke, 115 Wis. 2d 124, 339 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1983).
907.03 AnnotationThe trial court erred by barring expert testimony on impaired future earning capacity based on government surveys. Brain v. Mann, 129 Wis. 2d 447, 385 N.W.2d 227 (Ct. App. 1986).
907.03 AnnotationWhile opinion evidence may be based upon hearsay, the underlying hearsay data may not be admitted unless it is otherwise admissible under a hearsay exception. State v. Weber, 174 Wis. 2d 98, 496 N.W.2d 762 (Ct. App. 1993).
907.03 AnnotationAlthough this section allows an expert to base an opinion on hearsay, it does not transform the testimony into admissible evidence. The court must determine when the underlying hearsay may reach the trier of fact through examination of the expert, with cautioning instructions, and when it must be excluded altogether. State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), 95-1067.
907.03 AnnotationFor a defendant to establish a constitutional right to the admissibility of proffered expert testimony, the defendant must satisfy a two-part inquiry determining whether the evidence is clearly central to the defense and the exclusion of the evidence is arbitrary and disproportionate to the purpose of the rule of exclusion, so that exclusion undermines fundamental elements of the defendant’s defense. State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, 252 Wis. 2d 499, 643 N.W.2d 777, 00-2830.
907.03 AnnotationThis section implicitly recognizes that an expert’s opinion may be based in part on the results of scientific tests or studies that are not his or her own. State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, 253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919, 00-3065.
907.03 AnnotationMedical experts may rely on the reports and medical records of others in forming opinions that are within the scope of their own expertise. Enea v. Linn, 2002 WI App 185, 256 Wis. 2d 714, 650 N.W.2d 315, 01-2781.
907.03 AnnotationThis section does not give license to the proponent of an expert to use the expert solely as a conduit for the hearsay opinions of others. As in a civil proceeding there is no independent right to confront and cross-examine expert witnesses under the state and federal constitutions. Procedures used to appoint a guardian and protectively place an individual must conform to the essentials of due process. Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223, 267 Wis. 2d 310, 671 N.W.2d 377, 03-0967.
907.03 AnnotationThis section is not a hearsay exception and does not make inadmissible hearsay admissible but makes an expert’s opinion admissible even if the expert has relied on inadmissible hearsay in arriving at the opinion, as long as the hearsay is the type of facts or data reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field in forming opinions on the subject. A circuit court must be given latitude to determine when the underlying hearsay may be permitted to reach the trier of fact through examination of the expert with cautioning instructions for the trier of fact to head off misunderstanding and when it must be rigorously excluded altogether. Staskal v. Wausau General Insurance Co., 2005 WI App 216, 287 Wis. 2d 511, 706 N.W.2d 311, 04-0663.
907.03 AnnotationIn an operating while intoxicated (OWI) prosecution, even if a defendant establishes a constitutional right to present an expert opinion that is based in part on portable breath test results, applying the St. George, 2002 WI 50, test, the right to do so is outweighed by the state’s compelling interest to exclude that evidence. Permitting the use of that evidence as the basis for an expert opinion would render meaningless the legislature’s forbidding of that evidence in OWI prosecutions under s. 343.303, an act that promotes efficient investigations of suspected drunk driving incidents and furthers the state’s compelling interest in public safety on its roads. State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6, 322 Wis. 2d 265, 778 N.W.2d 629, 07-1898.
907.03 AnnotationThat part of this section that a properly qualified expert witness may rely on inadmissible material if that material is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, rests on the commonsense reality that a testifying expert could not be required to replicate all of the experiments and personally make all of the observations either underlying the development of the expert’s field or otherwise relevant to the expert’s opinion. Permitting the expert to rely on inadmissible material in accordance with this section does not violate a defendant’s right to confrontation. State v. Heine, 2014 WI App 32, 354 Wis. 2d 1, 844 N.W.2d 409, 13-1022.
907.03 AnnotationThe disclosure of otherwise inadmissible information under this section is to assist the jury in evaluating the expert’s opinion, not to prove the substantive truth of the otherwise inadmissible information. In this case, the state’s reference to the DNA evidence during closing arguments was a shift from a non-hearsay impeachment purpose to a substantive use to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The DNA evidence was inadmissible hearsay, and it was erroneously received during trial and closing argument as no limiting instructions were given to the jury as to its consideration of the DNA evidence. The DNA evidence, at a minimum, could not be presented to the jury without proper limiting instructions and could not be used by the state as substantive evidence. State v. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55, 399 Wis. 2d 277, 963 N.W.2d 887, 20-0032.
907.03 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2023 WI 9, 405 Wis. 2d 654, 985 N.W.2d 87, 20-0032.
907.03 AnnotationAn Evaluation of Drug Testing Procedures Used by Forensic Laboratories and the Qualifications of Their Analysts. Stein, Laessig, & Indriksons. 1973 WLR 727.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Fischer
State v. Fischer (2010)
“Fischer argued that the motion in limine should be denied for two reasons: first, that Wis. Stat. § 907.03 , which permits an expert to testify as to an opinion regardless of the admissibility of the underlying data on which the opinion is based, is an exception to Wis.”
State v. Kleser (2010)
“" Wis. Stat. § 907.03 . Even assuming that Kleser's hearsay was reasonably relied upon by an expert in Dr.”
State v. Williams (2002)
“…¶ 28. An expert opinion may be based on inadmissible hearsay. Wis. Stat. § 907.03 ; State v. Watson, 227 Wis. 2d 167, 195 , <span class="citatio”
State v. Watson (1999)
“Professor Daniel Blinka of Marquette University Law School has pondered this dilemma in a scholarly article discussing Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which is the model for Wis. Stat. § 907.03 . Professor Blinka writes: What should be done with the experts' inadmissible bases?…”
State v. Rozerick E. Mattox (2017)
“, ¶15 ("[T]he toxicology report "was admissible under Wis. Stat. § 907.03 (2011-12) as a basis for expert opinion testimony .”
State v. Oscar C. Thomas (2021)
“§ 907.03 (2019-20).11 Section 907.03 is an evidentiary rule that applies in both civil and criminal contexts.”
Martindale v. Ripp (2001)
“Wis. Stat. § 907.03 . Both Dr. Ryan's admitted testimony and his excluded testimony were consistent with this rule.”
Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co. (1991)
“1987), the court of appeals, relying on sec. 907.03, Stats., held that an expert could testify that his opinion was based on an out of court statement, since this statement was of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in formulating opinions.”
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller (2013)
“…the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. See also Wis. Stat. § 907.03 . 18 No. 2010AP2363-CR & 2010AP2364-CR reasoned that the state put in traditional chai”
Walworth County v. THERESE B. (2003)
“First, although Wis. Stat. § 907.03 allows an expert to base an opinion on hearsay, it does not transform the hearsay into admissible evidence.”
Staskal v. WAUSAU GENERAL INS. CO. (2005)
“Symons responded that the report was admissible under this hearsay exception and was also admissible under Wis. Stat. § 907.03 because it was the type of data reasonably relied on by experts investigating industrial accidents in forming their opinions.”
State v. Nelson (1987)
“were admissible under sec. 907.03, Stats., [1] since they formed the basis of an expert opinion.”
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.