Opinion ID: 2324603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Baby's Screech

Text: Richard Oatley (Richard) testified for the state. At the time of the incident in question, Richard owned both 16 Bowdoin Street, where Beverly Vanasse had a first-floor apartment, and 20 Bowdoin Street, where he and his wife Rhonda Oatley resided. Sixteen Bowdoin Street and 20 Bowdoin Street were separated by a twelve-foot driveway. Over defense counsel's objections, Richard testified that on the night of November 2, at approximately 7:10 p.m., he heard a sound that he characterized as a baby's screech. He testified that [i]t sounded like a baby's screech, when they got hit or they didn't get their own way. Defense counsel, in objecting to that testimony, asserted that Richard's testimony as to what he heard sounding like a baby's screech would not be helpful to the trial jury in understanding his testimony or determining any fact in issue. He also argued that the fact that Richard could not say for certain where the sound had come from undermined the probative value of his testimony and increased its prejudicial effect. Rule 701 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides: Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.  If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions is limited to those opinions which are (A) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (B) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Lay-opinion testimony may be rendered when `the subject matter to which the testimony relates cannot be reproduced or described to the jury precisely as it appeared to the witness at the time, and the facts upon which the witness is called to express an opinion are such that [persons] in general are capable of comprehending.' Bettencourt, 723 A.2d at 1111. Our review of the trial court's decision to permit opinion testimony by a lay witness is limited to determining whether the trial justice abused his or her discretion by allowing such testimony. State v. Mallett, 600 A.2d 273, 276 (R.I. 1991). We observe from the record that Richard's testimony concerning the sound resembling a baby's screech that he heard at approximately 7:10 p.m. was certainly relevant in light of the previous testimony given by his wife, Rhonda. She had testified that at 6:30 p.m., when she visited Beverly's apartment where Wilding was babysitting, Cassandra was then in good physical condition and had no bruises or facial markings. When Rhonda left the apartment at approximately 7 p.m. Cassandra's condition was the same. The sound of what appeared to Richard to have been a baby's screech at about 7:10 p.m., when Wilding was alone with Cassandra in the nearby apartment, would be helpful to the jury in determining if and when Wilding had hit Cassandra and inflicted the injuries upon her. The state obviously presented that evidence in order to establish that it was more probable than not that Cassandra had been injured by Wilding after Rhonda left the apartment but before Julie and Beverly returned at about 10:30 p.m. Proffered evidence is considered probative and relevant when it `renders the existence of the fact sought to be proven more or less probable than it would have been without the evidence.' Kaner, 463 A.2d at 1351 (quoting State v. Parente, 460 A.2d 430, 436 (R.I.1983); citing McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence, § 185 at 437 (2d ed. Cleary 1972)). We believe that Richard's testimony was helpful to the trial jury in determining a material fact that was in issue. Furthermore, despite Wilding's assertions, we discern no existing counterbalancing or unduly prejudicial factors that might have substantially outweighed the probative force of Richard's testimony. We therefore conclude that Richard's testimony was both relevant and probative, and its admission was not an abuse of the trial justice's discretion. For the reasons stated, the defendant's appeal is denied. His judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the papers in the case are remanded to the Superior Court.