![]() ![]() Thus, a witness who has personally observed a person may testify as to his or her opinion as to whether the person was impaired by alcohol or drugs. If, however, the witness’s observations put the witness in a position to judge the facts more accurately than those who have not had those opportunities, the witness may properly testify as to opinions drawn from those observations. 2009) as illustrating “the possibility that no particular expertise is required for a witness-or a juror-to find that the driver of a vehicle is more likely to suffer left-side injuries in an accident” but concluding that the defendant failed to establish that as a matter of law, regardless of the previous experience of a witness, lay testimony that in general the person on the left side of a vehicle is likely to have left-side injuries is always inadmissible). And an officer should not be permitted to testify to conclusions that the jury can easily draw for itself, such as that injuries to the left side of the body are consistent with a person having been seated on the left side of a wrecked vehicle. An officer likewise may not testify as to his conclusion about the point of impact between two cars based on a post-crash investigation. Thus, an officer who did not see an accident or the placement of the vehicles at the time of an accident may not express an opinion as to which driver had the right of way at the time vehicles entered an intersection. 701 provides that a lay witness may testify about opinions or inferences that are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.Ī lay witness generally is not permitted to testify as to his or her opinion when the witness is able to relate facts to the jury in a manner that enables the jury to draw its own inferences and conclusions from those facts. What are the rules for opinion testimony by lay witnesses? N.C. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing this testimony, that the error was not harmless, and that Denton was entitled to a new trial. Denton argued on appeal that the trial court erred by permitting Trooper Fox to testify to his opinion that Denton was driving the car when it crashed. He testified, however, that he could not conclusively state that Denton was driving.Īppeal. Souther testified that he had three theories about how the crash happened and that the one he deemed the most plausible was the one in which the defendant was the driver. The second officer, Trooper Souther, analyzed the crash and testified as an expert in accident reconstruction. Mitchell would be able to operate that vehicle or reach the pedals.’” Slip op. Fox, who acknowledged that he was not an expert in accident reconstruction, testified that he believed Denton, who was 5’11” tall was driving at the time of the crash because “‘the seating position was pushed back to a position where I did not feel that Ms. Fox also measured the distance from the driver’s seat to the gas pedal and to the steering wheel. He found long strands of brown or dark-colored hair trapped in the passenger side of the vehicle and windshield glass. The first, Trooper Fox, responded to the accident and investigated the scene. Two law enforcement officers testified for the State at trial. Denton was indicted for felony death by vehicle. Circumstantial evidence indicated that Denton, who suffered a severe head injury and could not remember the day of the accident, was driving the car when it crashed. 18 and that benzodiazepine and cannabinoid were present in his urine. Hospital blood tests revealed that Denton had a blood alcohol concentration of. The vehicle smelled of alcohol, beer bottle caps were inside the vehicle, and a sealed bottle of beer was found on the ground by Mitchell’s body. Denton was severely injured and was air-lifted to the hospital. ![]() Denton and Mitchell were ejected from the car, and Mitchell died at the scene. Timothy Denton and his friend Danielle Mitchell were in Denton’s mother’s car on August 1, 2014, when it ran off the road and wrecked. _ (June 4, 2019), decided yesterday.įacts. ![]() May a law enforcement officer who personally investigates, but does not observe, a vehicle crash testify as to his opinion about who was driving the vehicle? Does the answer depend upon whether the officer is qualified as an expert in accident reconstruction? The court of appeals considered those questions in State v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |