Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: rationally based on perception of witness

Text: Rule 701, W.R.E., incorporates the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 602 which we have heretofore discussed. Thus, it is said that: Under Rule 701, the witness must have perceived firsthand the pertinent events or matters, and his inference or opinion must be rationally based on his perception; his testimony must be rejected if his firsthand observation was inadequate to support an opinion. 3 Louisell and Mueller, Federal Evidence § 376 at 618-619. In Joy Manufacturing Company v. Sola Basic Industries, Inc., supra, 697 F.2d at 111, it was said: The court is in essence requiring that the best evidence available  first-hand knowledge verses second-hand knowledge  be presented to the jury for use in its deliberation. In Gorby v. Schneider Tank Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir.1984), the testimony of a witness who proposed to state that Welch did `everything he could to avoid [the] accident,' and that Gorby could have avoided the accident was rejected by the court because they were based upon speculation rather than first-hand knowledge or observation. It was pointed out that the witness could only observe one vehicle, could not know what the drivers perceived, nor was he familiar with the vehicles. Where the proffered opinion of the witness was an opinion by a lay witness and encompasses a legal conclusion, a trial court may very properly conclude that a response would not be helpful to the trier of fact. The danger here is that the jury could easily accord too much weight to the pronouncement of a lay witness unfamiliar with the standards erected by the criminal law, whose statement may be charged with the emotionalism of a person coming to the rescue of an embattled co-worker. (Citations omitted.) United States v. Ness, 665 F.2d 248, 250 (8th Cir.1981). When Billy testified of his suspicions of my father killing my mother, that suspicion was not based upon personal knowledge or perception and was not admissible because Dr. Schmunk had been indicted for first degree murder. The question and answer added nothing to the case. The reason Billy left Douglas was irrelevant to any issue before the jury. His testimony was both inadmissible and prejudicial.