Opinion ID: 1807431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Door Markings

Text: Boppre asserts that the district court erred in allowing Police Detective Overman to testify that it appeared someone wrote the markings found on the door casement with a finger. He argues that Overman was not ever qualified by the State as being an expert witness or otherwise qualified... to be able to answer that particular question. Brief for appellant at 38. Because Overman was not qualified as an expert, the question is whether the subject was proper for a lay witness. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 1989) provides: 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 a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, we have held that lay testimony should be excluded whenever the point is reached at which the trier of fact is being told that which it is itself entirely equipped to determine. State v. William, 231 Neb. 84, 435 N.W.2d 174 (1989). Overman testified as to personal observations he made of the writings at the scene of the crime, and his testimony was helpful to the jury, which only saw the writings as depicted in photographs. As such, the district court did not err in allowing Overman's testimony.