Opinion ID: 1695575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the trial court manifestly erred in refusing to allow the investigating police officers to give their lay opinions as to the cause of the accident in question, based upon their training and experience as law enforcement officers, their experience in investigating traffic accidents and their physical findings at the scene of the accident in question.

Text: The Couchs argue that the trial court committed manifest error in its refusal to allow investigating officers to give testimony, as lay witnesses, concerning the cause of the accident. Rule 701 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence states: 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. This Court, in accordance with Rule 701 and the comment thereto, has limited lay witness opinion testimony to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to the clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. See Sample v. State, 643 So.2d 524, 529-30 (1994) (if the witness must possess some experience or expertise beyond that of the average, randomly selected adult, it is a Rule 702 opinion and not a Rule 701 opinion.); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Gilich, 609 So.2d 367, 377 (Miss. 1992) (lay opinions are those which require no specialized knowledge however attained); Seal v. Miller, 605 So.2d 240, 244 (Miss. 1992) (question calling on a police officer to respond based on experience as an officer investigating accidents is by definition not a lay opinion); Wells v. State, 604 So.2d 271, 279 (Miss. 1992) (If particular knowledge ... is necessary to assist the trier of fact ... then such testimony would never qualify as a lay witness opinion under M.R.E. 701); M & M Pipe & Pres. Vessel Fab. v. Roberts, 531 So.2d 615 (Miss. 1988) (where this Court, in the discussion of the admissibility of a police officer's testimony as a lay opinion, determined that an opinion could be given as to contributing factors, such as broken brake lights). Notwithstanding the characterization of the officers as lay witnesses at trial, the opinion which the Couchs attempted to solicit was an expert opinion based on training and experience as a law enforcement officer and experience in the investigation of accidents and physical findings at the scene of the accident. It is well-entrenched in Mississippi law that a qualified expert's opinion testimony regarding accident reconstruction may be admissible. See Hollingsworth v. Bovaird, 465 So.2d 311, 314-15 (Miss. 1985). Further, it is clear that a police officer's testimony as to the cause of the accident, based on training, experience in investigation, etc., would be considered accident reconstruction testimony, allowable as expert testimony under Rule 702, if the officer is properly qualified. Id. at 314-15. See Miller v. Stiglet, Inc., 523 So.2d 55 (Miss. 1988); see also M.R.E. 702 (providing that a witness may be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education). On remand, the Couchs may list the officers as expert witnesses and proffer their testimony as such. In light of M.R.E. 701 and M.R.E. 702, and the authorities cited herein, the trial judge, at that time, may allow the testimony of the officers as expert testimony if they are properly qualified and tendered as such.