Opinion ID: 1890333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Any Error in Admitting Detective's Testimony Concerning Differences in Signatures on Checks was Harmless.

Text: Roach contends that the trial court erroneously admitted opinion testimony from lead detective Robert Duvall concerning whether the signatures on certain checks were likely Eba's. We conclude that to the extent that the trial court erred in admitting Duvall's testimony concerning his examination of signatures on the checks, the error was harmless. Wendell was permitted to offer his opinion that the signatures on several checks did not appear to be Eba's. Roach does not attack the admissibility of Wendell's opinion testimony on appeal despite having challenged it at trial. As a result, the admissibility of Wendell's opinion testimony is not before us, so we make no specific determination about it. We do note in passing that Kentucky caselaw has previously recognized the propriety of admitting such lay witness testimony when the lay witness is very familiar with the signatory's handwriting, and the testimony would be helpful to the jury. [11] Perhaps the case at hand presented more than the usual evidentiary challenges in judging the authenticity of signatures because of Eba's impaired vision and the absence of any official exemplar of her signature, such as a current driver's license. Eba's signature varied on different documents, and she depended upon the handwriting of others to complete all but the signature on her checks. For example, Wendell admitted that a signature on an unchallenged check to a doctor did not really look like his mother's signature and also admitted that his mother's signature changed somewhat from check to check. Jean testified that the handwriting on an unchallenged check written to a hairdresser looked like her own handwriting, although from our review of her testimony, it is unclear whether Jean meant the handwriting on other portions of the check or the actual signature portion. Given Jean's other testimony that she sometimes filled in other portions of the check for Eba, perhaps Jean meant that other portions of the check looked to be in Jean's handwriting without actually meaning to suggest that the signature looked like Jean's handwriting. We recognize that Detective Duvall's opinion testimony could appear to the jury to be potentially more reliable testimony that might tend to buttress the testimony of Eba's family members, who conceivably might stand to inherit assets and, thus, might benefit financially from Roach's conviction. But having reviewed Detective Duvall's testimony in detail, we find no reversible error in its admission. As Roach points out, the trial court did not allow admission of Duvall's testimony as expert testimony under KRE 702. [12] Despite having taken some college courses that covered handwriting analysis and having had experience in cases involving fraud and crimes against the elderly, Detective Duvall testified that he was by no means a handwriting expert. The trial court did not make any finding that he was a handwriting expert. Instead, the trial court admitted Detective Duvall's testimony as lay witness opinion testimony under KRE 701. [13] Having reviewed his testimony, we note that Detective Duvall never directly opined that the signatures on certain checks were actually forged. [14] More accurately, in the context of explaining how the investigation proceeded and why the prosecution went forward, Detective Duvall recounted how he recognized significant differences between the signatures on those checks that Wendell purported to know were Eba's as compared to those that Wendell contended were suspicious. Detective Duvall noted that in the unchallenged signatures, there was no gap in Eba, whereas, in the supposedly suspicious checks, the E stands by itself with some space before the rest of the name. He also observed the presence of flat E 's in unchallenged signatures versus the presence of curls at the top of E 's in the signatures on suspicious checks. He also pointed out that the unchallenged signatures contained rounded M 's and W 's, but the suspicious signatures contained spiked M's and W 's. [15] Detective Duvall expressed the opinion that even laypeople should be able to observe such differences and that most people have a fairly consistent pattern in writing, although subtle differences appear among the same person's handwriting samples. Under the relatively recent precedent we established in Hampton , the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this lay witness opinion testimony on handwriting because it was based upon Detective Duvall's own observations and was potentially helpful to the jury. [16] While Detective Duvall did not directly opine that the checks were forged, we acknowledge that his testimony certainly added credence to Wendell's opinion that they were. Detective Duvall's testimony essentially pointed out differences in the signatures that the jury could observe for itself and judge whether any such differences indicated forgery when it examined the evidentiary exhibit of the challenged and unchallenged checks. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Detective Duvall's lay witness opinion testimony concerning the signatures was admitted in error, [17] we conclude that any error would have been harmless because we can say with fair assurance that this testimony did not substantially sway the judgment. [18]