Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In his brief to this Court, Deardorff acknowledges that the duct-tape comparison was an area beyond the understanding of an average juror. There is no dispute that Carter examined the tape from the crime scene and the roll of tape from the warehouse facility. Deardorff appears to argue that the State did not establish Carter’s qualification to render an expert opinion about the duct tape comparison. However, the Advisory Committee’s Notes to Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid., provide: “[U]nder Rule 702 'qualification’ should continue to be defined broadly, so that one may gain an expertise through practical experience as well as through formal training or education. See, e.g., International Telecommunications Sys. v. State, 359 So.2d 364 (Ala.1978) (<HOLDING>).” Carter’s testimony established that he had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the judge and jury may rely upon common knowledge and experience without proof (B) recognizing that experience and practical knowledge as fully as formal education qualify one to make technical judgments (C) recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge (D) holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion (E) recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction
Output (English): holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion