Federal Statute Surrounding Opinion Testimony

¶ … federal statute surrounding opinion testimony by lay witnesses is found in Article VII, Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It states that:

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are

a) Rationally based on the perception of the witness and b) Helpful to clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact at issue.

The South Carolina statute surrounding opinion testimony by lay witnesses is Article VII, Rule 701. It is the same as the federal rule, with the addition of a third clause that reads:

c) Do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training.

This added language exists to emphasize the fact that lay persons cannot give expert opinions. Lay testimony is therefore restricted to areas where there is no expert. It is the lack of an expert that makes the use of a lay person to provide the opinion testimony a viable option.

The North Carolina statute surrounding opinion testimony by lay witnesses is Article 7, Rule 701. It is identical the federal statute.

For the most part, these statutes are the same. Both Carolinas have taken their statutes from the federal statute almost word-for-word. All three contend that lay witnesses are able to testify opinions only in specific situations. The first clause is basic, allowing that such lay witnesses must be able to draw the conclusions from their own perceptions of their experiences, recalling the general rule that lay witnesses can only testify to their own personal sensory experiences. The opinion cannot be formed based on the statements of another witness, or on hearsay.

The second clause permits such testimony only when the opinion contained therein is helpful to understanding. There may be instances where the lay person's testimony would be difficult to understand for any number of reasons, but the opinion would help to clarify the testimony for the court. The opinion must therefore be directly related to the case. Superfluous opinion evidence is inadmissible; it must provide genuine value to the court's understanding of the case.

In South Carolina, the added c) clause implies that in addition to the above, the situation must be such that there is no expert witness who could otherwise provide the opinion in question. The only time, then, in South Carolina where lay persons may render opinion is in situations where any reasonable lay person could form such opinions. If the situation is such that the opinion cannot reasonably be formed except by an expert, the lay opinion is inadmissible. This essentially rules out the potential for a lay witness to contradict an expert witness, but be held as more reliable. By excluding lay witness testimony in matters requiring an expert witness, the supremacy of expert witness testimony is firmly established in the statute.