Opinion ID: 1779026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Error in overruling motion in limine

Text: ¶ 43. Turner assigns as error the trial court's denial of his oral motion in limine to prohibit the investigating police officers from stating their opinions as to who was driving the pick-up truck. Before the start of the trial, the State moved in limine to exclude the testimony of the defense's expert accident reconstructionist from giving an opinion as to who the driver of the truck was. That motion was granted. Subsequently, the defense moved in limine to exclude any investigating police officers from stating their opinions as to who was driving the truck. The following exchange occurred: MR. FARRELL: Your Honor, in that connection, then, will the Court permit police officers to testify as to their opinion as to who was closest to the steering wheel or who was driving or anything of that nature? MR. FARRIS: Your Honor, that's just pure fact, who was closest to the steering wheel and who was on top of the pile. THE COURT: They can testify what they visually observed. They were there. I'm going to allow them to testify as to that. MR. FARRELL: Will any statements or any testimony be allowed, Your Honor, with regard to their opinion as to who was driving? THE COURT: Any statement about the opinion? MR. FARRELL: Whether the Court will permit testimony from the police officers with regard to their opinion as to who was driving. THE COURT: Did they investigate? MR. FARRELL: Pardon me? THE COURT: Did they investigate? MR. FARRELL: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: If they investigated, I'm going to allow them to make reasonable opinions associated with the investigation if they were out there. I'm going to allow them to do that. .... THE COURT: If they took a statement along those lines, I'm going to allow them to do it. You are asking me just carte blanche just say that I'm not going to allow them to do it, and I don't know the entire circumstances behind it, Mr. Thorne. If they get on there and they've got sufficient background information to substantiate that they can make a determination as to who was driving, I'm going to allow them to do it, but if it has no basis and they are just speculating, then that's an entirely different story. I can't carte blanche say that I'm not going to let them do it now, because I don't know the facts or circumstances from what they are going to testify to, and that's what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to say at this point that they are not going to be able to give an opinion, and I don't know what they are going to testify to. But I do know that based upon his motion in limine that what you are asking me to allow your expert to do is to say that this expert can come into this courtroom and give an opinion as to where everybody was seated in that truck based upon what the injuries were and based upon what the doctor's report was, and I'm not going MR. THORNE: No, sir, not based strictly on the doctors reports. It's based on all of the information that has been accumulated and provided to us through discovery and his own investigation, looking at the scene, looking at the vehicles and the doctors' reports in addition to that. THE COURT: Okay. Well, at this time if you were making an oral motion in limine to exclude any testimony from the police officers, that motion will be overruled at this time. Basically because I don't know what they are going to testify to, if they have an opinion.... ¶ 44. This assignment of error by Turner focuses on the testimony of Officer William Putt. Turner does not point to any specific objectionable testimony in his brief. The State assumes, as does this Court, that Turner complains of the following testimony; Q Now, Mr. Putt, at that point in time was it your opinion that Corky was the driver of that vehicle? A Yes, sir, it was. MR. THORNE: Your Honor, object to that. Calls for his opinion. He's not qualified to give that type of opinion. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Q And what did you base your conclusion on? A The statements from the EMTs. Turner argues that Putt was a lay witness and not an expert, and that therefore he could not testify as to the cause of the accident or who was driving at the time of the accident. Turner also argues that Putt's testimony does not satisfy the requirements of Miss.R.Evid. 701 for lay witness opinion testimony. ¶ 45. The State counters that it is clear from a reading of the record that Putt was not testifying as an expert. The record reveals that Putt was being questioned by the State as to his belief that he had probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Turner's blood after Turner refused to submit to a blood alcohol test. The questions leading up to this statement by Putt all dealt with the facts supporting Putt's determination that there was probable cause for a search warrant for Turner's blood, but not for Terry Moore's. Turner insists that Putt was really giving expert testimony in the form of accident reconstruction. The record belies that assertion. ¶ 46. The question is whether this statement was proper lay witness opinion testimony. Rule 701 of the Miss.R.Evid. provides that: 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 (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. Putt's statement does not appear to meet the requirements of the rule. First, his opinion was based on the perceptions of the EMTs, and not his own. Second, his opinion invaded the province of the jury to determine who was the driver of the truck. However, the opinion did help the jury to understand why Putt believed he had probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Turner's blood, and why he did not believe that he had probable cause to obtain a search warrant for Moore's blood. ¶ 47. Although the trial court erred in allowing this testimony, this Court holds the error harmless. In Whittington v. State, 523 So.2d 966, 974-75 (Miss.1988), a lay witness police officer was permitted to express his opinion that at the time of his investigation, he did not think the victim died in the car wreck. Although this was the defendant's theory of defense, this Court held that the error was harmless because the Court found that the officer's statement was no more than an expression that his suspicion was aroused following his investigation at the scene. Whittington, 523 So.2d at 975. The Court reasoned that the jurors already knew that the investigating officers were suspicious, or else the investigation would not have continued. The Court found that it would have been a much more serious question if the officer had been asked and permitted to testify that, at the time of trial, he did not believe the victim was killed in the wreck. Id. Finally, the Court found the error cured by the fact that an expert testified after the officer and, in great detail, explained why in his opinion he did not believe the victim was killed in the accident. Id. ¶ 48. In the case sub judice, as in Whittington, the jurors already knew that Putt suspected Turner to be the driver because he did not pursue an effort to obtain Moore's blood. Additionally, Putt's testimony was followed by Terry Moore's testimony in which he testified directly that Turner was the driver. Therefore, we hold that any error was cured, as it was in Whittington.