Opinion ID: 883111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lay Opinions

Text: Abbey objects to the following opinions in the testimony of Deschene and Fillner: Deschene: And to me it didn't look like  it looked highly unlikely that the damage could have happened in that spot. Deschene: There was damage underneath the fender part on the bottom part of the vehicle that appeared that the car was hit on the bottom, or ran over something. Fillner: The direction of the scrape appeared to me that the car had been moving backwards. ; The Commission allowed this testimony over Abbey's counsel's objection. Both parties in this case recognize that the above testimony is improper lay witness testimony. The District Court concluded that the testimony should not have been permitted. The court determined that the inclusion of these opinions from lay witnesses was harmless error. Abbey argues that the cumulative effect of the lay testimony prejudiced him. The City of Billings argues that the lay witnesses merely testified to facts already in evidence. Harmless error is an error committed during the trial proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the party. Barrett v. Asarco Inc. (1990), 245 Mont. 196, 799 P.2d 1078. Thus, in order for the District Court to reverse the Commission, Abbey had to show that Deschene's and Fillner's testimony violated his substantial rights. We conclude that he has not shown that. The majority of Deschene's and Fillner's testimony constituted their observations of the parking space occupied by car #1421 as well as their observations of the car itself. Personal observations by lay witnesses are admissible in evidence. The objectionable opinions, although not properly permitted by the Commission, are no more than repetitions of the much more detailed testimony of the police experts, Captain Dreezen and Officer Carpani. Because the opinions of Deschene and Fillner added nothing new and controversial to the hearing, and Abbey has not shown that the testimony affected his substantial rights, we conclude that the opinions offered by Deschene and Fillner were harmless error. Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the opinions erroneously admitted during the Commission proceedings from Deschene and Fillner were merely harmless error.