Opinion ID: 1058888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Testimony of Darla Harvey

Text: The next issue raised is whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Darla Harvey's testimony regarding her opinions about Davidson when he came into the Lakeview Tavern two weeks after Jackson's disappearance. We note that Davidson concedes that Harvey's testimony regarding his activities while in the bar was admissible. However, he complains that it is cumulative to the testimony given by other witnesses about his habit of sitting and watching people. Davidson argues that Harvey's opinions were improper lay opinions in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701. He also contends that they were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. [10] The State asserts that any error was harmless. Darla Harvey testified that on the afternoon of October 12, 1995, Davidson sat silently in the Lakeview Tavern and stared at her for over an hour while sipping a beer. She stated that she thought that Davidson's staring wasn't right, made her kind of wary, and led her to conclude that something ain't right and this ain't working out too good. Harvey further testified that, as Davidson continued staring, she got a gut feeling that she should go outside and look at his truck. After examining Davidson's truck, she said to herself, Good, I got me a nut. The defense's objection to this remark was sustained. Harvey testified that, after re-entering the bar, she was bothered when Davidson continued to stare at her and then went to the restroom and looked out the back door. She testified that, as Davidson remained in the bar, he made her nervous, that she felt real uneasy about the whole situation, and that his staring was making [her] very uncomfortable. Harvey testified that it was funny and that something wasn't right when Davidson left the bar at one point to get a cigarette since he had just opened a pack of cigarettes. Harvey said that, when she saw Davidson get something out of his truck, she placed her gun close at hand and released the safety. She continued to believe that something wasn't right when Davidson returned because he did not speak to her when she addressed him and because he kept his hand in his pocket. Harvey stated that she had been ready to shoot Davidson if he had come any closer. She commented that she just had a bad feeling, this guy wasn't making me feel right. Finally, Harvey testified that she felt so afraid at this point, that she urged some customers to ask Davidson to leave and that Davidson then left. Under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 401 evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. However, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403 excludes any relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701(a) provides: If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Initially, we disagree that all parts of Harvey's testimony challenged by Davidson in this Court amount to lay opinion. While Harvey's testimony that something ain't right and that this ain't working out too good were opinions, her statements that she was kind of wary, had a gut feeling or a bad feeling, and was frightened, uneasy, and uncomfortable were not opinions but descriptions of her state of mind during the time that Davidson was in the tavern. This testimony was relevant to explain Harvey's examination of Davidson's truck. Furthermore, those portions of Harvey's testimony that are opinions were observations rationally based on her perception of the facts. See, e.g., Brown, 836 S.W.2d at 550 (stating that opinion testimony is admissible when it describes the witness's observations in the only way in which they can be clearly described). This testimony was helpful to the jury in understanding why Harvey acted as she did while Davidson was in the tavern. Harvey's statements were therefore relevant. See Cohen, Sheppeard & Paine, Tennessee Law of Evidence § 7.01[4][c] (4th ed.2002) (stating that implicit in the requirement that lay opinion be helpful is the concept of relevance). Moreover, Harvey's assessment of Davidson's behavior was unlikely to result in any unfair prejudice. Therefore, we conclude that the probative value of this testimony outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. We thus hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these portions of Harvey's testimony. Furthermore, even if the challenged statements were inadmissible, in light of the entire record on appeal, we would conclude that any error in the admission of Harvey's statements would have been harmless. See Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 52(a). Several other witnesses testified concerning similar behavior by Davidson. This issue is without merit.