Opinion ID: 1182165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State's Rebuttal Witness

Text: The State called Officer Ben Anchetta in rebuttal to estimate the distances between certain landmarks at the site. Anchetta used a strollermeter to measure distances of 50, 100, and 150 feet adjacent to the property which was gated and secured. He then estimated the distances between landmarks on the property which were visible by referring to the measurements he had laid out. There was no objection to Anchetta's testimony at trial, but we address the issue on appeal pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) 52(b). [5] Defendant claims that the lay opinion evidence related by Anchetta violated HRE 701 [6] because his opinions or inferences were not rationally based on his perception and were not helpful to either understanding his testimony or determining a fact in issue. We disagree. Anchetta's opinions regarding the distances in question were based upon his first-hand knowledge and perception and may have been helpful to the jury. See A. Bowman, Hawaii Rules of Evidence Manual § 701-2 (1990). They were supported by measured reference points and were clearly as admissible as the estimates given by defense witness Ornellas. Given the liberalized approach to such lay opinion testimony embodied in Rule 701, HRE, the trial court's ruling allowing Anchetta's testimony was correct.