Opinion ID: 2366561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Disallowing Ms. Blanchard's Opinion Testimony

Text: [¶ 16] Mother contends the district court erred in refusing to allow Ms. Blanchard to testify as to her opinion about which parent should have custody of the children. Mother asserts that such lay opinion testimony is permitted under W.R.E. 704 even if it relates to an ultimate issue. She contends the district court erred in excluding the testimony based upon an ultimate issue analysis. [¶ 17] Father asserts any error in prohibiting the testimony was harmless because Ms. Blanchard ultimately testified that she thought both parents were good parents and had not seen either one of them do anything that would justify taking the children away from them. Father also contends the district court properly disallowed Ms. Blanchard's opinion testimony because she testified that she saw Mother only two to three times per year; therefore, there was insufficient foundation for her to express an opinion. Given her limited involvement with Mother, Father contends, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objection to her expressing an opinion about which parent should have custody of the children. [¶ 18] W.R.E. 704 provides: Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue. Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. This Court has recognized that Rule 704 is designed to permit opinion evidence on an ultimate issue. Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60, 66 (Wyo.1989), overruled on other grounds by Large v. State, 2008 WY 22, ¶ 30, 177 P.3d 807, 816 (Wyo.2008). We have said that Rule 704 in effect abolishes the ultimate issue objection. Stephens, 774 P.2d at 66, citing Reed v. Hunter, 663 P.2d 513 (Wyo. 1983). We also have said: It was the intent of the framers of the Rules of Evidence to considerably relax the prohibition against receipt of opinion testimony both by expert and lay witnesses. Generally, the rules should be liberally construed to allow the admission of such evidence. Yet, on occasion, we recognize that certain opinion evidence may not be helpful or may have a potential for such mischief that it ought to be rejected. McCabe v. R.A. Manning Construction Company, 674 P.2d 699, 705 (Wyo. 1983). [¶ 19] We have not previously addressed ultimate issue opinion testimony in the context of a custody determination. In Reed, homeowners brought an action against an insurance company for breach of contract or negligence in denying coverage after their home burned. At trial, the homeowners presented an expert witness who testified that in his opinion the insurance company blew it with respect to their insurance coverage. On appeal, this Court found no error in the district court's decision to allow the witness to state his opinion concerning the ultimate issue. Reed, 663 P.2d at 518. [¶ 20] In McCabe, a contractor sued a property owner for the balance allegedly due on an oral construction contract. One of the primary issues in the case was whether the parties abandoned the original cost-plus agreement and entered into a new fixed price contract. The property owner sought to introduce evidence that an architect he had employed on the project and who was present at the meeting when the parties allegedly discussed the new agreement was of the opinion that the parties abandoned the original agreement and entered into a new one. McCabe, 674 P.2d at 704. The district court did not allow the opinion testimony. This Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the testimony. Among the factors we considered in reaching that result were: the architect was employed by the property owner, helped in the preparation of his case and may have been biased in his favor; the issue of whether the parties made a new agreement was hotly contested; and the testimony of the parties as to what transpired at their meeting, what was said and what occurred, was clear and understandable and more than sufficient for the jury to reach its determination. Id. at 705-06. [¶ 21] In the present case, the district court sustained the objection to the witness expressing her opinion as to who the more appropriate parent was to have primary custody of the child, stating that was a determination ultimately for the court to make. While an ultimate issue objection is not an appropriate ground for excluding opinion testimony in light of Rule 704, the decision whether to admit or exclude evidence is within the district court's discretion. WRE 701 allows a lay witness to testify in the form of an opinion if the opinion is: 1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and 2) helpful to understanding the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue. We conclude from the record before us the district court could have exercised its discretion to exclude the testimony on one of these grounds. Although the district court phrased its ruling in terms of the ultimate issue, it seems just as likely it concluded Ms. Blanchard's opinion would not be helpful. [¶ 22] We also are not persuaded Mother was prejudiced by the exclusion of Ms. Blanchard's opinion testimony. Had the district court allowed her to testify which parent she thought should have custody of the children, it seems unlikely the result would have been different. Although the district court did not hear her opinion, it likely surmised what her opinion was from the fact that she was Mother's witness and Mother sought to present the opinion testimony. Under these circumstances, any error in excluding the testimony was harmless.