ABSTRACT

The fact that an opinion is held may be relevant to a matter in issue or to the credibility of the witness. In that event, the witness is not seeking to establish the existence of facts that are the subject of the opinion, and the opinion rule does not then exclude evidence of the opinion. For instance, a plaintiff suing for an assault may say that he or she believed the defendant was about to inflict immediate physical violence on him or her, not to prove that the defendant was in fact about to do so, but merely to show the effect of the

EEsssseennttiiaallEEvviiddeennccee

defendant’s conduct on the plaintiff’s mind. Again, on a charge against an accused of receiving stolen goods, the prosecutor must show that the accused believed the goods to be stolen (otherwise there is no mens rea), and in an action for damages based on a misrepresentation by a defendant, the plaintiff ’s belief that the defendant’s statement was true would be relevant on the issue of reliance. On an issue of the credibility of a witness, the cross-examiner can ask the witness whether the witness’s testimony-inchief was false because the witness was biased against the opposing party (for example, because the witness believed that the opposing party had cheated him or her previously).