Return to CALJIC Part 1-2 – Contents
F 2.81 n1 Lay Opinion: Foundational Requirement.
Before a defendant may ask a lay witness about intoxication, he or she must establish a foundation. For example, in People v. Navarette (2003) 30 C4th 458 [133 CR2d 89], both witnesses said they had never seen people on drugs. Therefore, they were not sufficiently knowledgeable to render an opinion as to whether the defendant was under the influence of drugs.
F 2.81 n2 Lay Opinion: Personal Observation As Foundational Requirement.
“Lay Opinion testimony is admissible under [EC 1102] when based on the witness’s personal observation of the defendant’s course of behavior.” (People v. Felix (99) 70 Cal.App.4th 426, 430 [82 CR2d 701].)
F 2.81 n3 Lay Opinion: Forgetfulness Of Accused On Issue Of Willfulness.
When the defense contests the willfulness element of the charge based on the “forgetfulness” of the accused (e.g., failure to register as a sex offender (PC 290)), lay opinion may be admissible. (See People v. Moss REV GTD/DISD/DEPUB (2003) 109 CA4th 56 [lay opinion based on personal opinion as to the defendant’s forgetfulness].)
F 2.81 n4 Lay Opinion: Shoe Prints (EC 800).
Lay opinion testimony concerning shoe print comparison is permissible with proper foundation. (See People v. Maglaya (2003) 112 CA4th 1604; see also People v. Lucero (98) 64 CA4th 1107 [noting that courts in other states that have considered the issue have upheld the admissibility of lay opinion testimony comparing shoes and shoeprints].)
F 2.81 n5 Lay Opinion: Veracity Of Other Witness.
See People v. Melton (88) 44 C3d 713, 744 [lay witnesses’ opinion about veracity of another witness is inadmissible and irrelevant and invades the province of the jury].
(See also FORECITE F 2.019 n8.)
