Opinion ID: 1933203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opinions of the Xtra Mart Employees

Text: [¶ 14] Xtra Mart also argues that the court abused its discretion when it allowed May Kaechele and Mailey testify to their opinions that the assault would not have occurred had they called the police earlier. Xtra Mart contends that this evidence usurped the jury's proper role. [¶ 15] Maine Rule of Evidence 701 establishes the general rule related to lay opinion testimony. A lay witness may testify as to her opinions if those opinions. . . are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. M.R. Evid. 701. [10] More specifically, Rule 704 provides that opinion testimony is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. M.R. Evid. 704. We defer to the discretion of the presiding justice in making the M.R. Evid. 704 determination and will not disturb the exercise of that discretion `absent clear abuse of discretion or an error of law.' Pierce v. Central Me. Power Co., 622 A.2d 80, 83 (Me.1993) (quoting Minott v. F.W. Cunningham & Sons, 413 A.2d 1325, 1330 (Me.1980)). [11] [¶ 16] May Kaechele and Mailey were asked if they thought the situation could have been avoided had they called the police earlier. Both answered in the affirmative. Although the testimony was presented in the form of a legal conclusion (but for their inaction, the assault may not have occurred), it did not usurp the jury's role. Both individuals were present throughout the events at issue. Both had an opportunity to observe Roddy's actions and to be aware of the amount of time passing. Both were familiar with the response of the police. Although May Kaechele's opinion could have been understood to be self-serving, her relationship to the injured party alone did not require the exclusion of her statement. See M.R. Evid. 601; see also State v. Smith, 400 A.2d 749, 755 n. 6 (Me.1979) (recognizing that self-serving testimony is not inadmissible for that reason and suggesting that the jury may devalue such testimony). Xtra Mart was free to argue to the jury that the statement carried little probative value as a result of its self-serving nature. The trial court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion when it allowed the testimony.