Opinion ID: 1841963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Opinion Testimony of Wanda Brown

Text: The defendant urges that the trial court erred in allowing opinion testimony of lay-witness Wanda Brown. Specifically, he contends that Brown should not have been allowed to testify that it appeared to her that a robbery was taking place. As a general matter, La. C.E. art. 701 permits the court to allow opinion testimony by a lay witness when the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue. Furthermore, a witness may testify to a matter based on personal knowledge. La. C.E. art. 602. Moreover, [t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not to be excluded solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. La. C.E. art. 704. In the instant case, Brown testified that she was approximately four to six feet from the men, and that she and the two men stood in a sort of triangle. Brown further stated that she personally observed the defendant and the victim engaged in a heated discussion, and exchanging hand gestures. Brown testified that she watched as the pair appeared to be having an argument. Accordingly, Brown's observation that a robbery was taking place may have been rationally based on her perception, as well as the perception of any layperson, of the interaction between the defendant and the victim. If this is the case, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting the evidence. See State v. Vanderhoff, 415 So.2d 190, 194 (La.1982) (While it is true that a lay witness, generally, can testify only as to facts, a witness is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from personal observation.). However, the credibility and reliability of such testimony, once admitted, was still within the province of the reasonable juror.