The inquiry should center on the extent to which the testimony involves "inferences or thought processes not common to everyday life." See State v.
#Fre lay witness trial#
In deciding whether the testimony fits under Rule 701 or 702, the trial judge should initially consider the complexity of the subject area, although some subject areas, such as handwriting or intoxication, are susceptible to both lay and expert testimony. The amendment is not a change from past practice but is designed to assist lawyers and judges in the line-drawing process distinguishing between lay and expert testimony. 2014) (allowing experienced farmers to testify about the cause of their crop failure). 1984) (allowing owner to testify about the value of a mobile home) Ptacek v. The Federal Advisory Committee Note describes this as testimony, not based on specialized knowledge, but based on "particularized knowledge" developed in day-to-day affairs, including testimony from an owner about the value of a business, house, or chattel. The second category involves testimony from a skilled layman. First, as a matter of necessity, witnesses may testify in the form of a generalized opinion about common matters they observed such as speed, size, distance, how they felt or how others appeared, intoxication, mental ability and numerous other subjects, if helpful. Non-expert inference or opinion testimony tends to fit into two separate categories.
#Fre lay witness code#
1997) (law enforcement agents could testify that the defendant was acting suspiciously, without being qualified as experts however, the rules on experts were applicable where the agents testified on the basis of extensive experience that the defendant was using code words to refer to drug quantities and prices). Certainly it is possible for the same witness to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case. The amendment does not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses, but rather between expert and lay testimony. As stated in the Federal Advisory Committee Note: The rule addresses the nature of the testimony, and is not an attempt to characterize a particular witness. 9.01, 9.02 by introducing testimony based on scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge under this rule. Parties should not avoid the foundational requirements of Rule 702 and the pre-trial disclosure requirements of Minn. Rule 701(c) comes from the 2000 amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
0 kommentar(er)
