Court Opinion

ID: 9745770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:31:05.163659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:04.458265
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion affirming the convictions. I write separately to address the admission of a lay witness's opinion testimony.
The Indiana Rules of Evidence allow the opinion testimony of a person who is not testifying as an expert witness. However, that person's opinion must be rationally based upon that person's perceptions, and the opinion must be helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Indiana Evidence Rule 701. The testimony is thus limited to an opinion that follows from what that person has directly observed and perceived.
Evid.R. 701 allows the admissions of such opinion testimony to aid in the determination of a fact in issue, and Evid.R. 704(a) allows the admission of such testimony where the opinion embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. However, Evid.R. 704(b) specifically excludes opinion testimony in certain instances. One such instance is opinion testimony concerning intent in a criminal case. Although the Indiana Rules of Evidence were not yet in effect at the time of appellant's trial, these rules are consistent with case law that was in effect at the time of trial, as the majority opinion notes.
While the rules prohibit opinion testimony of a person's intent, the rules do not prohibit opinion testimony of a person's capacity to form intent. Opinion testimony of a person's capacity to form intent does not directly establish or negate a person's intent. Rather, opinion looks directly to a person's ability to form the intent. Of course, such an opinion must be rationally based upon the opinion giver's perceptions and observations. The distinction between opinion of intent and opinion of capacity to form intent is especially important in the case at bar. Appellant raised the defense of voluntary intoxication, in order to attack the prosecution's proof of intent. Appellant might have called the witness, his girlfriend, to testify as to her opinion about appellant's state of intoxication. The girlfriend might have formed the opinion that appellant was so intoxicated that he was *346incapable of forming any intent to commit the charged crimes. Such an opinion would have been admissible under the evidentiary rules.
Here, however, appellant sought to introduce the girlfriend's opinion as to whether she believed appellant intended to kill her. This is the type of opinion testimony that the rule specifically precludes. Therefore, I concur with the majority opinion.