Opinion ID: 879188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of officer peterson's testimony with respect to power steering failure

Text: Appellant contends the trial judge erred in qualifying Officer Peterson as an expert and in allowing him to testify with respect to how a car reacts when its power steering mechanism fails. Officer Peterson was not qualified as an expert in auto mechanics pursuant to Rule 702, M.R.Evid. Rather, the trial judge referred to him as a semi-expert. (Tr. p. 363, 1. 18-20) The law of evidence does not recognize a semi-expert. Although Officer Peterson was not qualified as an expert witness, his opinion was properly received under Rule 701, M.R. Evid. That rule states: Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. 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 (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Officer Peterson testified solely with respect to what, on the basis of his own experience, happens to a vehicle when its power steering fails. He did not offer an opinion as to what specifically happened to defendant's vehicle. The testimony served primarily to clarify in the minds of the jurors, who might not have experienced a similar failure, what exactly happens when the power steering system of a car fails. The evidence certainly established that Officer Peterson was qualified to offer his lay opinion. He had worked on vehicles of all kinds for over ten years and had experienced power steering problems several times. We find no error in the admission of Peterson's opinion.