Also known as: ultimate issue · ultimate issue rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A fact or conclusion that directly resolves a claim or defense without any intervening inferences. An opinion embracing such a fact or conclusion is admissible if it otherwise satisfies the requirements for lay or expert testimony.
A fact or conclusion that directly resolves a claim or defense without any intervening inferences. An opinion embracing such a fact or conclusion is admissible if it otherwise satisfies the requirements for lay or expert testimony.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A factual determination necessarily decided in a defendant's favor at a prior criminal trial. Once resolved, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the state from relitigating that same determination in a later prosecution arising from the same conduct.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A factual determination necessarily decided in a defendant's favor at a prior criminal trial. Once resolved, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the state from relitigating that same determination in a later prosecution arising from the same conduct.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Usha Upton observed the defendant's vehicle enter the intersection and strike the plaintiff's car. At trial she states that in her opinion the defendant was driving negligently. The testimony is admitted because an opinion is not barred merely because it reaches the determinative question of fault.
Ursula Upton alleges that high-ranking officials acted with discriminatory purpose in detaining her. The complaint must contain factual allegations that plausibly support the ultimate inference of unconstitutional motive rather than merely stating the legal conclusion.
Uri Underwood offers an accident report that concludes pilot error caused the crash. The report is admissible even though it reaches the ultimate question of causation because opinions in official reports are not excluded solely for addressing determinative facts.
An opinion is admissible if it is otherwise proper under Rules 701 or 702 and helpful to the trier of fact. Rule 704(a) removes the common-law bar that once excluded opinions merely because they embraced an ultimate issue.
Supporting sources
Rule 704(b) prohibits an expert from stating an opinion on whether the defendant possessed a mental state that constitutes an element of the crime or a defense. That determination remains exclusively for the jury.
Supporting sources
Elena, a nurse, was acquitted after a jury found she was not the person who administered a fatal morphine dose. Prosecutors later charge her again for the same death using newly discovered pharmacy records. The second prosecution is barred because the prior acquittal necessarily decided the ultimate factual question of identity in her favor.
Ulf Ulfsson is tried for murder and raises an insanity defense. The jury must decide whether he proved insanity beyond a reasonable doubt under state law. The allocation of that burden does not relieve the state of proving every element of the offense to the jury's satisfaction.
Union Steel moves to suppress conversations recorded on its premises. The company lacks standing because it was not a party to the intercepted communications and therefore cannot assert the Fourth Amendment violation as an ultimate issue in its own defense.
Issue preclusion bars the state from relitigating any ultimate fact necessarily resolved in the defendant's favor at the first trial. The bar applies even if the state later obtains additional evidence or acted in good faith.
Supporting sources
No. If the first jury necessarily decided the ultimate issue of identity or causation in the defendant's favor, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the state from proving that same fact again regardless of how the new charge is labeled.
Supporting sources
…v. Texas , 347 U. S., at 482; see Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., supra , at 266. Since the ultimate issue is whether the State has discriminated in selecting the defendant's venire, however, the defendant may establish a prima facie case "in other ways than by evidence of long-continued…