Opinion ID: 1688330
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Speculative testimony

Text: For her final point of error, Ms. Diffee asserts that the trial court erred by allowing the State to elicit the speculative testimony of Melba Combee, Ms. Diffee's cousin, as to whether her aunt, Ms. Durham, would have let Ms. Diffee have her purse, which Ms. Combee discovered in Ms. Diffee's building on the morning the body was found. The testimony in question took place as follows: COUNSEL FOR STATE: Would she [Ms. Durham] have let Judy [Diffee] have her purse? WITNESS: Huh-uh. (no). COUNSEL FOR DIFFEE: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that question. I think it's hearsay and she's asking the witness to speculate. THE COURT: Hearsay? Overruled. COUNSEL FOR DIFFEE: She's asking the witness to speculate. THE COURT: I don't think it's hearsay at all. Overruled. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 701 prohibits the admission of speculative testimony. It states as follows: Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.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 (1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Stated another way, evidence is speculative where it is not helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony or to a determination of a fact in issue. We disagree that Ms. Combee's testimony regarding whether Ms. Durham would have let Ms. Diffee have her purse was speculative, as her opinion was based on a lifetime of observation. Ms. Combee was age 62 and Ms. Durham's niece, and had been around her aunt all her life, observing that she kept her car keys in her purse and guarded it carefully, not wanting anyone to know how much money she had. Thus, it was her opinion that Ms. Durham would not have let Ms. Diffee have her purse. Such lay testimony was rationally based on the perception of the witness, as A.R.E. 701 requires, and its admission was not in error. Reversed and remanded. GLAZE, CORBIN and BROWN, JJ., dissent.