Opinion ID: 1902977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: opinion testimony by officers

Text: ¶ 16. Over Morris's objection, Officers Grimm and Johnson were allowed to offer their opinion that Morris intended to run the officers off the road when he swerved his vehicle at their patrol car. Rule 701 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence governs 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 the clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Miss. R. Evid. 701. ¶ 17. A proper lay opinion could be offered as to whether Morris appeared to deliberately or involuntarily swerve his vehicle. As Judge Ready determined, the question only called for a common-sense observance. However, the prosecutor's request for the officers' opinions as to whether Morris had the intent to run them off the road or to cause them injury went beyond the purview of Rule 701's requirement that the opinion must be rationally based on the perception of the witness. One may not perceive the intent behind another person's actions. Unless one expresses his intent, the only method by which intent may be proven is by showing the acts of the person involved at the time in question, and by showing the circumstances surrounding the incident. Wheat v. State, 420 So.2d 229, 239 (Miss.1982) ( quoting Thompson v. State, 258 So.2d 448, 448 (Miss.1972)). We have stated: The intention of a party is a fact determination to be made by the jury from the evidence. In arriving at this determination it has the duty to consider the testimony concerning the assault, the surrounding circumstances, including the expressions made by the participants. To permit comment on the subjective intentions of an accused by a witness based on conclusions reached from his observation invades the province of the fact finders. The issue of intent must be decided by the jury from the evidence in the case and not the conclusions of others. Garrison v. State, 726 So.2d 1144, 1150-51 (Miss.1998) ( quoting Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 73 (Miss.1975)). See also Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss.1987); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 463 (Miss. 1984); Williams v. State, 317 So.2d 425, 427 (Miss.1975); Shanklin v. State, 290 So.2d 625, 627 (Miss.1974). On remand, the trial court should not allow opinion testimony relative to Morris's intended result from swerving his vehicle toward the patrol car.