Opinion ID: 1852505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of wesley reeves.

Text: ¶ 43. Wesley Reeves, Stewart's husband, testified that he had observed gravel trucks, logging trucks, and 18-wheelers travel on Highway 25, some leaving the paved portion of the roadway from time to time. He testified that these vehicles have tandem wheels and that if one of these wheels gets off the road, the other wheel still supports the axle. Counsel for Belmont Homes objected to this testimony on the grounds of competency, and the objection was overruled. ¶ 44. Belmont Homes now contends that the testimony presupposed scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, thereby requiring that Reeves be qualified as an expert pursuant to Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. According to Belmont Homes, since Reeves was not qualified or tendered as an expert, this testimony should have been excluded. Belmont Homes also asserts that the testimony did not qualify as lay opinion testimony under M.R.E. 701. ¶ 45. Since Belmont Homes only objected on the grounds of competency, issues regarding Rules 701 and 702 have not been properly preserved. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 594 So.2d 29, 35 (Miss.1992) (holding that defendant's failure to object as to prejudicial impact of testimony precluded the issue from being addressed on appeal even though defendant had objected as to the relevance of the same testimony). Belmont Homes asserts that the point to which the general objection is taken is obvious, and that the court clearly had the particular ground of objection in mind.... See 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 215, at 296 (1993) (footnotes omitted). Yet, the subject of competency falls under an entirely different evidentiary rule than the subject of expert and lay opinion testimony. We agree with Belmont Homes' assertion that the point to which the objection is taken is, indeed, obvious. However, that point is competencynot impermissible expert or lay opinion testimony. ¶ 46. Even if Belmont Homes properly preserved the issue for appeal, the issue is without merit. Assuming arguendo that the testimony in question is opinion testimony, it was properly admitted under Rule 701. Rule 701 limits non-expert opinions or inferences to those 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. We have established a bright line rule for distinguishing between expert and lay opinion testimony. In Sample v. State, 643 So.2d 524, 529 (Miss.1994), this Court stated: [W]here, in order to express the opinion, the witness must possess some experience or expertise beyond that of the average, randomly selected adult, it is a Miss. R. Evid. 702 opinion and not a Rule 701 opinion. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n v. Gilich, 609 So.2d 367, 377 (Miss.1992) (lay opinions are those which require no specialized knowledge however attained).... ¶ 47. Reeves testified that his statement was based on his own observations. Thus, his testimony met the first requirement of Rule 701. The testimony is also helpful to the determination of a fact in issue, thus falling within the second requirement of Rule 701. Furthermore, it does not take any specialized education, experience, or training for a randomly selected adult to observe that tandem wheels are mounted on a common axle. Therefore, Rule 702 is inapplicable in this instance. ¶ 48. We find that Reeves's testimony was properly admitted and that there is no merit to this assignment of error.