Court Opinion

ID: 9570868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:27:06.931335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:49.916162
License: Public Domain

Judge Vaughn
dissenting:
' I am not firmly committed to the notion that a lay witness, after stating in detail all the relevant and specific facts observed by him, should not be allowed to state his conclusion based on *52those facts for whatever weight, if any, the jury may elect to attach to it. As a practical matter I doubt that the results at trial would be affected if all rules to the contrary were discarded.
Given however, that we do recognize a concept called the “opinion rule,” I must dissent from the view of the majority that the decisions in Cook and Fletcher require us to hold, without qualification, and contrary to the great weight of authority in this country, that any witness may testify that in his opinion a defendant was under the influence of drugs. As to this question, the law of Cook and Fletcher appears to be only that in those cases the admission or exclusion of the lay opinion did not constitute prejudicial error so as to require a new trial.
The issue is squarely presented in the case at bar. There is no evidence that the witness had ever seen anyone known to be under the influence of drugs or that he was aware of any symptoms a person under the influence of drugs might display. On the record he was without experience or training relating to drugs. He had never seen defendant before the occasion of the arrest. In my view defendant’s first assignment of error is well taken and there should be a new trial.