Opinion ID: 1807431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Robert Kinsey's Testimony

Text: Boppre complains that the district court erred in allowing Kinsey to testify that there was blood on the door casement, for the reason that Kinsey was never qualified as an expert witness to the extent he would be able to give his opinion as to something of that nature. Brief for appellant at 40. As noted in part II above, although Kinsey at first testified the substance on the casement was blood, Boppre objected, and the district court asked Kinsey to rephrase his answer, which Kinsey did, testifying that the substance appear[ed] to be blood. Boppre did not object to Kinsey's second answer. However, even if Boppre had preserved his objection to the second answer, Kinsey's testimony was nevertheless properly admitted. As set forth previously, under § 27-701 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 a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Kinsey testified as to personal observations he made of the substance at the scene of the crime, and his testimony was helpful to the jury, which only saw the substance as depicted in photographs. As such, the district court did not err in allowing Kinsey's testimony.