Rule 5-704 - Opinion on Ultimate Issue(a)In General. Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.(b)Opinion on Mental State or Condition. An expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may not state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant had a mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged. That issue is for the trier of fact alone. This exception does not apply to an ultimate issue of criminal responsibility. Section (a) of this Rule is derived from F.R.Ev. 704(a). Section (b) is new.
Adopted Dec. 15, 1993, eff. 7/1/1994. Amended June 21, 1995, eff. 9/1/1995.Committee note: Section (b) of this Rule is substantively different than F.R.Ev. 704(b). The Federal provision precludes an opinion on the ultimate issue of criminal responsibility, i.e., sanity. The Maryland Rule does not preclude such an opinion. It does, however, preclude an opinion as to whether the defendant had a required intent or mental state where that intent or state is an element of the offense. See Hartless v. State, 327 Md. 558 (1992).