Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 907 — EVIDENCE — OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 907.04 (2026)

Opinion on ultimate issue

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
907.04907.04 Opinion on ultimate issue. 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.
907.04 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R211 (1973).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: State v. LaCount, 2008 WI 59 (Wis. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. LaCount, 2008 WI 59 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 26× “" [6] Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 907.04 states, "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.”
State v. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 8× “Wis. Stat. § 907.04 . Further, evidence is "relevant" if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
State v. Williams, 485 N.W.2d 42 (Wis. 1992). · cites it 6× “[19, 20] Under sec. 907.04, Stats., testimony in the form of an opinion otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Nw. Wisconsin Home Care, Inc., 2005 WI 118 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 4× “In addition, testimony in the form of an opinion or inference that is otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
State v. Luis M. Rocha-Mayo, 2014 WI 57 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 38× “" Wis. Stat. § 907.04 . Both parties agree that Dr.”
State Ex Rel. Strykowski v. Wilkie, 261 N.W.2d 434 (Wis. 1978). · cites it 2× “2d 409 (1969); sec. 907.04, Stats. The Illinois Supreme Court has also held that the Illinois malpractice statute denied the right of jury trial.”
Glassey v. Cont'l Ins., 500 N.W.2d 295 (Wis. 1993). · cites it 2× “Section 907.04, Stats., provides: 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.”
Roe v. State, 290 N.W.2d 291 (Wis. 1980). · cites it 2× “The psychiatrists are not legal experts, they are medical experts, and although they may testify as to the ultimate facts at issue, when a proper foundation for their testimony has been laid, they are not competent to give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant…”
State v. Serebin, 350 N.W.2d 65 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 2× “Therefore, the experts' testimony concerning the need for repositioning every two hours, or the potential risk of bedsores without such repositioning, was sufficient without the need of an examination of the individual resident, or an ultimate opinion as to whether the bedsores…”
Wisconsin v. Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Wis. Stat. § 907.04 (1997-98) ("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.”
State v. Elm, 549 N.W.2d 471 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996). “2d 409, 415 (1969) (there is no objection in Wisconsin to an expert giving his opinion on an ultimate fact); § 907.04, STATS. ("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…”
State v. LaCount, 2007 WI App 116 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Under Wis. Stat. § 907.04 , "[t]estimony 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.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.