Court Opinion

ID: 9637541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:09:54.565852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:57.608908
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, President Judge,
concurring:
Appellant bases his argument on Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 256 Pa.Super. 259, 389 A.2d 1113 (1978). That case, however, was an expert witness case: the doctor examined the defendant some five hours after the arrest and testified, on the basis of his knowledge of the rate at which alcohol is absorbed in the body, that appellant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. This is not an expert witness case. The issue, rather, is the permissible extent of “lay” opinion, and on that issue I agree with the majority that the officer was competent to express the opinion. Although the officer testified as to the ultimate issue — that appellant was too intoxicated to drive safely— he based his opinion upon his observations of appellant.