Johnson v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtMcDonald, J.
A factfinder at a trial applies common sense drawn from shared human experience to the evidence to reach a fair determination of the facts. Some evidence, however, is beyond the common experience of most people. Expert testimony may be necessary for the factfinder to decide the significance of such evidence.
Expert testimony is often required to explain scientific or technical matters. But expert testimony is not required simply because one can explain a matter scientifically. For example, a jury can be expected to readily understand the significance of testimony that a clock or a thermometer…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United States v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
- Jones v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2004
- United States v. Carlos Richard Romero, United States of America v. Joseph Anthony SenaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
- Phillips v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2017
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Steamfitters Local v. Erie InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- Amer. Radiology v. ReissCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
- State v. GaliciaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2022
- Peterson v. Evapco, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2018
- Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2019
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.