![]() 488 (1998) (permissible lay opinion where witness testified that child was using two dolls to “illustrate” various sexual acts that the defendant committed on the child). 158 (2000) (permissible lay opinion where prison officer testified that screaming sounded “like somebody is fearing for their life” and the crime scene looked “worse than any hog killing he had ever seen”) State v. 234 (2000) (witness allowed to testify in form of an opinion that defendant “was trying to shoot him in the head” where testimony about exact body position, placement, and angles would have been impractical) State v. ![]() 182 (2007) (officer’s opinion testimony in burglary trial that door had been forced or kicked open was a permissible shorthand statement of fact, based "upon seeing the door standing ajar but still bolted, and the splintered door frame") State v. 115 (2007) (permissible lay opinion for witness to testify that other motorist’s lane was ending so he was “trying to force his way back over” but he was “forced to take the path that he was on”) State v. Opinion testimony summarizing observed facts is admissible because while “a description of all the underlying detailed facts that helped to form the witness' opinion may be possible,” it “is not practical due to the inherent difficulties in articulating one's analytical thought processes.” State v. The most common type of permissible lay opinion is called a “shorthand statement of fact,” which refers to the “instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time.” State v. The scope and admissibility of several common types of lay opinion testimony are discussed briefly below. Permissible and Impermissible Lay Opinions If an improper lay opinion is admitted at trial, the defendant must show prejudice to be entitled to relief on appeal. The Court of Appeals reviews the admissibility of lay opinion testimony under an abuse of discretion standard. _, 2021-NCCOA-700 (2021) (no abuse of discretion in allowing officer to give lay opinion identifying defendant's vehicle in surveillance video, based on officer's first-hand knowledge of the car) If the witness’s opinion is merely an assertion “which amount to little more than choosing up sides, exclusion for lack of helpfulness is called for by the rule.” G.S. However, to be admissible under Rule 701(b), a lay opinion still must be genuinely helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony or determining an issue in the case. The current test for admissibility under Rule 701(a) is less demanding than the old common law rule, which only allowed lay opinion testimony when it was “necessary” because the “articulation of more primary components impossible or highly impracticable.” G.S. The jury decides how much weight should be given to the lay opinion testimony. See also the related Evidence entry on Personal Knowledge. ![]() 461 (2011) (no error in excluding defendant's lay opinion about whether he would have been able to stop the vehicle even if he had not been impaired since no foundation was laid to show how defendant, in his intoxicated condition, would have had a basis for forming such an opinion). Davis showed the weapons to defendant that she heard defendant explain his need for a firearm that she noticed that weapons were missing from the house after defendant departed and that afterwards she saw that her husband had a substantial amount of cash") with State v. 382 (2009) (witness's inference that a firearms sale had taken place, even though she did not directly witness it, was a permissible lay opinion under Rule 701 based on her observations that "her husband had procured firearms after speaking with defendant that when defendant and Malanowski arrived, Mr. Rule 701 permits a lay witness to testify in the form of “opinions or inferences,” subject to two important limitations: (a) the testimony must be “based on firsthand knowledge or observation” and (b) it must be “helpful in resolving issues” related to facts or testimony in the case. ![]() (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are Rule 701 – Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |