Court Opinion

ID: 9586244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:08:34.385555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:03.483243
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge
concurring.
I join in the majority opinion except on the issue of whether the trial court properly allowed that part of Robin Lowery’s lay testimony expressing the opinion that Defendant “wasn’t mentally retarded.”
*672As the majority notes, at trial, Lowery stated:
He was fine. I mean, we functioned on a day-to-day basis. He basically had the say over where he went and what he had to do and what he had to wear. I mean, you know, he didn’t appear to be, you know, anything wrong. He would act a certain way around different people and he was kind of quiet, but when we was together, you know, he was a different person. I mean, you know, he told me what to do and, you know, we fussed and fight, stuff like that, but he wasn’t mentally retarded.
Under Rule 701 of the Rules of Evidence, lay witness opinion testimony is admissible if it is: “(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.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-701 (2004); State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 206, 531 S.E.2d 428, 456 (2000) (same).
This rule permits evidence which can be characterized as a “shorthand statement of fact.” This Court has long held that a witness may state the “instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance, condition, or mental or physical state of persons, animals, and things, derived from observation of a variety of facts presented to the senses at one and the same time.” Such statements are usually referred to as shorthand statements of facts.
Id. at 187, 531 S.E.2d at 445 (quotation omitted).
Several North Carolina statutes have defined mental retardation as “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with” other deficits and limitations. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1220-3(23) (2004); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 16A-2005(a)(1) (2004). This Court has previously found that this definition “represents the plain meaning of the term ‘mental retardation[.]’ ” In re LaRue, 113 N.C. App. 807, 811, 440 S.E.2d 301, 304 (1994). “[Significantly subav-erage general intellectual functioning” has been defined as “[a]n intelligence quotient of 70 or below.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-2005(a)(1).
Here, Lowery testified as to her observations of how Defendant functioned on a daily basis and how he acted in certain situations. Such testimony was clearly admissible under Rule 701. However, Lowery also stated that Defendant “wasn’t mentally retarded[,]” i.e., that Defendant did not have a significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning. I do not believe that Lowery’s statement that *673Defendant was not mentally retarded could “rationally [be] based on the perception of the witness” and therefore believe that statement constituted improper lay opinion testimony.1
As the majority notes, and as made clear in the Braxton citation above, “the mental condition of another is an appropriate subject for lay opinion.” State v. Bond, 345 N.C. 1, 31, 478 S.E.2d 163, 179 (1996). In Bond, testimony of a police officer that he did not think the defendant was mentally retarded was held admissible. Notably, however, in Bond, the testimony was allowed into evidence at a sentencing proceeding, where, as the Bond court explicitly noted, the Rules of Evidence do not apply but are merely guidance. Moreover, in support of the proposition that a person’s mental condition is a proper subject for lay opinion, the Bond court cited State v. Strickland, 321 N.C. 31, 361 S.E.2d 882 (1987), in which our Supreme Court stated that “ ‘[a] lay witness, from observation, may form an opinion as to one’s mental condition and testify thereto before the jury.’ ” Id. at 38, 361 S.E.2d at 886 (quoting State v. Moore, 268 N.C. 124, 127, 150 S.E.2d 47, 49 (1966)). However, in both Strickland and Moore, the lay opinions at issue went to whether the respective defendant was or was not “in his right mind.” There is a difference in kind between a person’s sanity and a person’s “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” or mental retardation, and the admissibility of lay testimony, as to the former does not indicate the admissibility of lay testimony as to the latter.
While I believe the admission of Lowery’s testimony that Defendant “wasn’t mentally retarded[]” was error, that error was harmless. The record reflects that it was clear that Lowery was not an expert on mental retardation, and the State proffered expert testimony that Defendant was not mentally retarded and was capable of forming a plan and specific intent. Because the trial court’s error was harmless, I concur in result with the majority.

. It is also worth noting that Lowery’s statement that Defendant was not mentally retarded directly contradicted the trial court’s finding, albeit made subsequent to Defendant’s trial, that “the Defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally retarded].]”