N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1

Rule 702 permits a properly founded expert opinion concerning suspected child sexual abuse when the opinion is not improperly used to endorse the child's credibility.

In Re Mashburn · filed 2004-02-03Rule 702

Paul Mashburn next argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing expert opinion testimony, in contravention of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702. ... Accordingly, we conclude Dr. Brown had a proper foundation upon which to render her opinion. Similarly, we find Dr. Harris's testimony unproblematic. ... Accordingly, we hold the trial court did not erroneously admit the expert opinions of Dr. Harris and Dr. Brown.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified medical expert to testify that examination findings are consistent with a child's account of sexual abuse when the expert is better positioned than the jury to assess that consistency.

State v. Newsom · filed 2004-07-06Rule 702(a)

Dr. Jones did not testify that the child had been sexually abused, but that her examination and findings of a normal exam were consistent with the child's story. Based on Dr. Jones's qualifications, she was in a better position than the jury to determine whether her findings were consistent with the child's accusations of sexual abuse.

Rule 705 does not require expert testimony to be given in response to a hypothetical question.

Unifour Construction Services, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2004-04-20Rule 705

The pertinent rules have provided since 1982 that there is “no requirement that expert testimony be in response to a hypothetical question.” G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 705.

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert to opine that a child was sexually abused when the opinion lacks supporting physical evidence or behaviors consistent with abuse.

State v. Ewell · filed 2005-01-18Rule 702(a)

Following this Court’s analysis in Dixon and Couser and our Supreme Court’s decision in Standi, we conclude the admission of Dr. Previll’s testimony that it was “probable that [T.G.] was a victim of sexual abuse” was not based on any physical evidence or behaviors consistent with sexual abuse and was error.

Rule 702 permits a physician to explain why an examination may show no physical signs of sexual abuse when the testimony does not express an opinion that abuse occurred.

State v. Buck · filed 2005-03-01Rule 702(a)

Dr. Anchan's testimony was elicited to help the jury understand the acute setting and did not express an opinion that sexual abuse had occurred. Thus, the trial court properly admitted Dr. Anchan's statement.

Rule 702(a) permits an expert, with a proper foundation, to testify that a child exhibits characteristics consistent with sexual abuse without opining that abuse occurred.

State v. Wheeler · filed 2005-03-01Rule 702(a)

Following the jury's return to the courtroom, the prosecutor laid a proper foundation by questioning Carey in detail about characteristics common to sexually abused children and then related that to whether A.B. exhibited any of those characteristics. The prosecutor also asked whether the anxiety and fearfulness A.B. demonstrated, was common among abused children. At no point did Carey say A.B. had in fact been abused, only that in light of her behavior and the things she said during the interview, that she recommended her for therapy. This did not constitute impermissible opinion testimony as to the victim's credibility.

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert to bolster a witness's credibility.

State v. Blizzard · filed 2005-04-05Rule 702(a)

We hold the admission of Dr. Reese's expert opinion testimony bolstering the credibility of the victim, the State's chief prosecuting witness, was error.

Rule 703 allows an expert’s reliable test results from another analyst to be admitted to show the basis of the expert’s opinion.

State v. Lyles · filed 2005-08-02Rule 703

Those results were used by Aldridge in forming his expert opinion and were admissible at trial to show the basis of that opinion.

Rule 703 permits an expert to rely on otherwise inadmissible facts or data received before or at the hearing when experts in the field reasonably rely on that kind of information.

In Re BD · filed 2005-11-01Rule 703

Rule 703 provides that an expert may testify regarding inadmissible facts and data made known to him or her "at or before the hearing" if the facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject[.]" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 703 (2003). ... In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, despite her absence from Brian's examination, the trial court did not err by allowing Dr. Brown to testify regarding her determination.

Rule 705 does not make the basis of an expert opinion automatically admissible; absent a request from the adverse party, the court need not allow testimony about statements underlying the opinion.

State v. Edwards · filed 2005-11-15Rule 705

Here, because the State did not choose to explore the basis for Dr. Hilkey’s opinion, the trial court was not obligated to allow the expert to testify as to statements that formed the basis for this opinion.

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert to bolster a witness’s credibility with opinion testimony.

State v. Blizzard · filed 2006-04-05Rule 702(a)

We hold the admission of Dr. Reese’s expert opinion testimony bolstering the credibility of the victim, the State’s chief prosecuting witness, was error.

Rule 703 permits an expert to base an opinion on statistical information commonly used and accepted in the expert's field.

Hammel v. Usf Dugan, Inc. · filed 2006-07-05Rule 703

The current rule allows evidence where an expert relies on statistical information commonly used and accepted in his field.

Rule 405(a) does not exclude expert opinions about a defendant’s marriage and attitude toward her spouse when those opinions are not character evidence.

State v. Theer · filed 2007-01-16Rule 405(a)

After a careful review of all of Dr. Kastleman’s testimony, we find that his opinions related to the state of the Theer marriage and Defendant’s attitude toward her husband and her marriage, neither of which meet the definition of character evidence. ... We thus conclude that admission of the testimony did not violate Rule 405(a).

Rule 701 excludes a lay witness’s opinion vouching for another witness’s credibility because that opinion does not help the jury decide a fact in issue.

State v. Gobal · filed 2007-10-16Rule 701

This is an opinion which vouches for the veracity of a witness. However, the jury was able to see for itself the manner and appearance of McCloskey when he testified, and determine for itself if it wanted to believe him. Therefore, the opinion as to his credibility was not helpful to the jury's determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, we hold that the admission of this testimony was error.

Rule 702(b)(2) governs who may give expert testimony on the medical standard of care; it does not require a neurosurgeon to give causation testimony.

Weaver v. Sheppa · filed 2007-10-16(b)(2)

However, defendants contend pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(b) (2005) that because plaintiffs' evidence regarding proximate causation did not come from a neurosurgeon, but rather from experts qualified in the specialized fields of emergency medicine and neurology, such evidence was not competent for purposes of plaintiffs' meeting their burden of production in order to withstand JNOV. Defendants, though, fail to cite any legal authority for this proposition of law and we find none.

Rule 702(a) permits expert opinion testimony when specialized knowledge will assist the factfinder; opinions that merely substitute an expert’s legal conclusions for the factfinder’s judgment may be excluded.

Burrell v. Sparkkles Reconstruction Co. · filed 2008-03-04Rule 702(a)

As noted by both defense counsel and the trial court, Mr. Dinsmore was not planning to give any additional information or facts that would “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a). Rather, he would essentially have been substituting his judgment of the meaning of the facts of the case for that of the jury and trial court. ... Based on the substance of Mr. Dinsmore’s voir dire testimony, and the trial court’s thoughtful consideration of the arguments presented by counsel for both parties, we see no abuse of discretion in this ruling.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified radiologist to testify about the severity of injuries shown by a CT scan when that opinion assists the jury.

State v. Liggons · filed 2009-01-06Rule 702(a)

Such testimony could assist the jury in determining a fact at issue — whether serious injury was inflicted upon Underwood. ... She was, therefore, competent to offer her expert opinion on the diagnosis of Ms. Underwood’s injuries, including the severity of those injuries, and Dr. Zacco’s “expert opinion testimony is not rendered inadmissible on the basis that it embraces an ultimate issue to be determined by the jury.”

Rules 703 and 705 permit an expert to explain the basis of an opinion using information that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay when it is offered for that limited purpose.

In the Matter of Jc · filed 2009-04-07Rules 703 and 705

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. McGraw's testimony into evidence as the purpose of her testimony was to explain the bases for her expert opinions regarding the emotional damage to the children caused by mother and father.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to give an opinion based on specialized knowledge that will assist the factfinder.

State v. Stallings · filed 2009-05-05Rule 702(a)

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence provide that [i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2007). ... We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Agent Morin's testimony.

Rules 701 and 702(a) distinguish lay opinion from expert testimony by whether the opinion draws on specialized knowledge.

State v. Armstrong · filed 2010-04-20Rule 701; Rule 702(a)

In sum, we hold that the trial court erred in allowing Glover, over objection, to provide expert testimony on the ingredients and effect of Narcan.

Rule 702(i) did not apply to this pre-amendment accident, so an expert who had not observed the accident could not give a speed opinion based on physical evidence at the scene.

Blackwell v. Hatley · filed 2010-02-02(i)

In the instant case, as in Hazelwood, the accident occurred prior to the change in Rule 702 and, accordingly, we apply the rule stated in Shaw, that “ ‘with respect to the speed of a vehicle, the opinion of a lay or expert witness will not be admitted where he did not observe the accident, but bases his opinion on the physical evidence at the scene.’ ”

The evidence rules permit helpful expert opinions but exclude statements that merely describe obvious features or decide an issue reserved for the court.

CAPE FEAR PUBLIC UTILITY AUTHORITY v. Costa · filed 2010-07-20Rules 702 and 704

Of these statements, the first four are not helpful to the trier of fact, as they merely describe the obvious physical features of the map. Thus, these were properly excluded. See N.C. R. Evid. 702. The final statement reaches a conclusion and decides an issue reserved for the trial court. This statement clearly "invades the province of the court and should not have been admitted." Williams, 83 N.C.App. at 120, 349 S.E.2d at 306. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the proposed affidavits.

Rule 702 requires supporting physical evidence for expert testimony giving a definitive diagnosis of sexual abuse.

State v. Chandler · filed 2010-08-27Rule 702

Before expert testimony may be admitted, an adequate foundation must be laid. ... And for expert testimony presenting a definitive diagnosis of sexual abuse, an adequate foundation requires supporting physical evidence of the abuse.

Rules 702 and 703 permit a qualified expert to estimate an earlier blood alcohol concentration using retrograde extrapolation; challenges to the expert’s stated assumptions go to the testimony’s weight rather than its admissibility.

State v. Green · filed 2011-03-01Rule 702(a); Rule 703

Because the trial court was within its discretion to allow Paul Glover to testify as an expert witness in the area of physiology and pharmacology, and because Glover’s testimony was permissible under Rules 702 and 703 of our Rules of Evidence, there was no error in the-trial court’s rulings.

Rules 401 and 702 permit exclusion of expert testimony that does not help the jury determine a fact in issue.

State v. Lane · filed 2011-03-11Rules 401, 702

In sum, Dr. Wilson’s testimony would not “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702, and would instead have likely suggested that defendant was definitively experiencing particular withdrawal symptoms. Furthermore, Dr. Wilson could not testify regarding the existence of a direct connection between any such symptoms and the reliability of defendant’s confession. Accordingly, this testimony was properly excluded by the trial court under Rule 401.

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony but does not always require it to establish a victim’s mental capacity to consent to sexual acts.

State v. Hunt · filed 2012-03-09(a)

Thus, Rule 702(a) recognizes the permissive, rather than mandatory, nature of expert testimony.

Rule 703 allows an expert to base an opinion on a photograph; that reliance alone does not make the opinion inadmissible.

State v. McDowell · filed 2011-09-06Rule 703

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 703, provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he facts or data . . . upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing.” ... Thus, the mere fact that an expert relied upon a photograph does not suffice to render an expert opinion inadmissible.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to testify that a child exhibits characteristics consistent with those of sexually abused children.

State v. Bunn · filed 2014-08-05Rule 702(a)

Therefore, we hold that it was not error, much less plain error, for the trial court to admit testimony from Berson and Dr. Berkoff because “it is permissible for an expert to testify that a child exhibits ‘characteristics [consistent with] abused children.’” State v. Ewell, 168 N.C. App. 98, 103, 606 S.E.2d 914, 918 (2005) (citation omitted).

Rule 702(a) permits qualified forensic pathologists to give relevant opinions on cause of death when their methods are sufficiently reliable, even if the body shows no physical sign of that cause.

State v. Borders · filed 2014-09-02Rule 702(a)

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the expert testimony of Dr. Tracy and Dr. Butts.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to explain that a child's delayed disclosure is consistent with the behavior of sexually abused children when the expert does not opine on the child's credibility.

State v. Purcell · filed 2015-07-07Rule 702

Dr. Thomas-Taylor did not opine on S.G.'s credibility; rather, she testified that S.G.'s delay in reporting anal penetration was not surprising given that children who have been sexually abused in that manner often delay in disclosing that particular abuse. ... The trial court thus did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony.

Rule 702(a) permits exclusion of expert opinion testimony when the witness does not establish a reliable methodology.

The N. Carolina State Bar v. Britt · filed 2015-09-01(a)

Regardless of the standard applied, Norman’s testimony did not establish his methodology as reliable, but instead raised further doubt as to the reliability.

Rule 702(a) permits a qualified expert to testify about retrograde blood alcohol extrapolation when the calculations use accepted scientific methods; imprecise terminology alone does not disqualify the expert.

State v. Turbyfill · filed 2015-09-01Rule 702(a)

Herein, we hold that because the calculations themselves were based on well-recognized and accepted scientific formula and applicable methodology, the terminology (mis)used by the expert, while perhaps troubling from the standpoint of basic mathematical concepts, was not critical to his qualification.

Rule 702 permits exclusion of expert opinion testimony and a report when reliance on incorrect data makes the opinion unreliable.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2015-10-20Rule 702

Rogers’s reliance on incorrect data rendered the report unreliable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the report and Rogers’s opinion testimony based upon inaccurate data.

Rule 702 does not make an expert’s testimony inadmissible merely because the expert did not personally interview the people discussed.

State v. Walston · filed 2015-12-01(a)

We have found that the trial court relied on the State’s argument that Dr. Artigues could not give expert opinion testimony because she had not personally interviewed the children. As we have held above, Dr. Artigues’ testimony was not inadmissible simply because she had not interviewed the children.

Rule 702 permits a qualified expert to testify that a child’s symptoms are consistent with sexual abuse when the opinion has a proper foundation and does not assert that abuse occurred.

State v. Lopez · filed 2015-09-01Rule 702

Moreover, this testimony could assist the jury understand the symptoms of sexually abused children and help it assess the credibility of Kate. Therefore, Nurse Warner’s testimony was not an impermissible expert opinion regarding Kate’s credibility, and the trial court did not err in admitting it.

The Rules of Evidence permit a child’s therapist to testify about trauma symptoms and treatment; testimony does not become inadmissible merely because it supports the child’s credibility.

State v. Harris · filed 2015-11-03

The mere fact that Burke’s testimony supports Kathy’s credibility does not render it inadmissible. Accordingly, we find no error—and certainly no plain error—in the trial court’s receipt of Burke’s testimony.

Rule 702(a) treats an expert’s interpretation or assessment based on specialized knowledge to assist the jury as expert opinion testimony.

State v. Davis · filed 2016-04-15Rule 702(a)

In other words, when an expert witness moves beyond reporting what he saw or experienced through his senses, and turns to interpretation or assessment “to assist” the jury based on his “specialized knowledge,” he is rendering an expert opinion.

Rule 702(a) incorporates the Daubert standard for admitting expert testimony after its 2011 amendment.

State v. McGrady · filed 2016-06-10Rule 702(a)

In other words, North Carolina’s Rule 702(a) now incorporates the standard from the Daubert line of cases.

Rule 702(a)(2) and (a)(3) require expert testimony to use reliable principles and methods and apply them reliably to the facts of the case.

State v. Abrams · filed 2016-08-02(a)(2), (a)(3)

Agent Baxter’s testimony was “the product of reliable principles and methods” “applied . . . reliably to the facts of the case[,]” which satisfied the two challenged prongs of the reliability analysis under Rule 702(a).

Rule 702(a) permits expert testimony when it rests on sufficient facts or data and the expert reliably applies reliable methods; representative chemical testing and visual inspection can satisfy those requirements.

State v. Hunt · filed 2016-09-06Rule 702(a)

As such, we hold that Agent Cruz-Quinones’ testimony was based upon sufficient facts and data and that he applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case, satisfying the first and third prong of the reliability analysis under Rule 702(a).

Rule 403 permits exclusion of language in an expert’s reports when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or misleading the jury.

Safety Test & Equip. Co. v. Am. Safety Util. Corp. · filed 2016-12-16Rule 403

That said, the Court again concludes, in its discretion, that Dr. Poindexter’s reports include language and statements that should be excluded under Rule 403 because the probative value of his testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice and may mislead the jury.

Rule 702 does not require a defense expert to examine or interview a prosecuting witness before testifying about issues involving that witness.

State v. Walston · filed 2017-05-05Rule 702(a)

Here the Court of Appeals was correct to clarify that a defendant’s expert witness is not required to examine or interview the prosecuting witness as a prerequisite to testifying about issues relating to the prosecuting witness at trial. We agree with and affirm the Court of Appeals’ legal analysis on this issue.

Rule 702(a) permits an expert to opine that a child was sexually abused when supporting physical evidence provides an adequate foundation; a chlamydia infection in a child of this age can provide that evidence.

State v. Knolton · filed 2017-05-02Rule 702(a)

Thus, evidence of a chlamydia infection in a child of Kerry's age provides the physical evidence necessary to establish an adequate foundation. With an adequate foundation, expert opinion testimony that sexual abuse has occurred is admissible.

Rule 702(a) admissions of expert testimony are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Shore · filed 2017-09-05(a)

Our Court reviews a trial court’s admission of expert testimony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) for an abuse of discretion.

Rule 702(a) rulings admitting expert testimony are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

State v. Shore · filed 2018-04-03(a)

Our Court reviews a trial court’s admission of expert testimony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) for an abuse of discretion.

Rule 702(a) permits a court to exclude expert testimony that offers no insight beyond conclusions jurors can draw from ordinary experience.

State v. Thomas · filed 2018-04-17Rule 702(a)

Where the proffered expert testimony would not provide insight to the trier of fact beyond the conclusions that jurors could readily draw from their ordinary experience, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony.

Rule 702(a) permits a trial court to exclude an expert opinion that would not assist the factfinder in drawing inferences from the evidence.

Dyer v. Roten · filed 2018-05-01Rule 702(a)

Accordingly, because Mr. Baker's opinion would not have assisted the trial court in drawing inferences from his observations, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not allow Mr. Baker to testify as to his expert opinion of the purpose of the various visitors to the Mother's home.

Rule 702(a) requires the trial court to assess an expert’s methods before admitting chemical analysis testimony, though failure to do so may not be plain error when the testimony was admitted without objection.

State v. Piland · filed 2018-10-16Rule 702(a)

Here, it was error for the trial court not to properly exercise its gatekeeping function of requiring the expert to testify as to the methodology of her chemical analysis. However, the error does not amount to plain error because the expert testified that she performed a “chemical analysis” and as to the results of that chemical analysis.

Rule 702(a) requires the trial court to assess the reliability of an expert’s methods before admitting the expert’s testimony.

State v. Piland · filed 2018-12-18Rule 702(a)

Here, it was error for the trial court not to properly exercise its gatekeeping function of requiring the expert to testify to the methodology of her chemical analysis. However, the error does not amount to plain error because the expert testified that she performed a “chemical analysis” and as to the results of that chemical analysis.

Rule 702(a) excludes expert testimony that does not aid the jury, including an unsupported opinion that the absence of physical evidence is consistent with sexual abuse.

State v. Davis · filed 2019-05-21Rule 702(a)

In other words, this portion of the expert’s testimony – in which she affirmatively stated that a lack of physical evidence is consistent with someone who has been sexually abused – should not have been allowed, as this testimony did not aid the trier of fact in any way. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2017).

Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony identifying a controlled substance; it does not determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction.

State v. Osborne · filed 2019-08-16Rule 702

As we noted in stating that “[t]his holding is limited to North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702,” id. at 147, 694 S.E.2d at 747, our decision in Ward focused solely upon the admissibility of the challenged evidence and did not address the sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s convictions in that case.

Rule 702(a) requires expert testimony to help the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Lopez · filed 2019-03-19Rule 702(a)

Because the State’s theory of physical helplessness did not rest on Miranda’s lack of memory, Dr. Wilson’s testimony would not have helped the jury “determine a fact in issue in this case.”

Rule 702(a) does not permit an expert to vouch for a child sexual abuse complainant’s credibility.

State v. Worley · filed 2019-11-05Rule 702(a)

Unlike those statements, here, Ms. Sullivan’s testimony improperly conveyed to the jury her opinion of Jane’s veracity.

Rule 702(a) requires expert opinions to rest on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods applied to the facts; judicial experience alone does not meet those requirements.

Snow Enter. · filed 2022-03-01(a)

These materials also demonstrate that these opinions were being offered solely on the basis of Judge Llewellyn’s personal knowledge and experience as a 21-year North Carolina Superior Court Judge, which does not meet the requirements of Rule 702.

Rule 702 bars an expert from diagnosing child sexual abuse based on the child’s disclosures and behavioral changes without supporting physical evidence.

State v. Clark · filed 2022-02-11Rule 702

Accordingly, we hold that permitting Ms. Parsons to testify that Jane was “sexually assaulted” in the absence of definitive physical evidence, irrespective of testimony concerning the victim’s behavioral changes, constituted plain error.

Rule 702 permits an expert to diagnose child sexual abuse when physical evidence supports the diagnosis.

In re: A.W. & C.W. · filed 2022-05-03Rule 702

We review a trial court’s decision regarding the admissibility of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion, to assess whether the expert witness’s qualifications and the expert testimony’s relevance and reliability were shown by ... sufficient evidence as required under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion and commit prejudicial error in allowing Dr. Smith’s expert testimony diagnosing Carol as a “victim of child sexual abuse.”

Rule 702(a) requires the trial court to exercise its gatekeeping function by requiring an expert to explain the rationale supporting an opinion.

State v. Stephen · filed 2024-12-31(a)

We conclude that the trial court erred by not properly exercising its gatekeeping function of Rule 702(a)—because it did not require Dr. Simmons to testify to the rationale supporting her opinion regarding the potential for defects to the fiberglass bathtub caused by a high-velocity gunshot injury—but this error does not amount to plain error.

Rule 702(a) requires an expert witness when testimony involves scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.

State v. Lacure · filed 2024-12-31Rule 702(a)

Based on this rule, a witness need only be tendered as an expert if the topic which they speak on is scientific, technical, or required specialized knowledge.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to testify about the consistency of statements she heard when that testimony helps the jury assess credibility.

State v. Stallings · filed 1992-08-18Rule 701

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1988) provides that a lay witness may testify “in the form of opinions or inferences . . . limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” Here, Ms. Kitchen’s testimony was simply that the victim never changed her story. It was admissible for the determination of a fact in issue the victim’s credibility.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on her own perception when it helps explain her testimony or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Slone · filed 1985-09-17Rule 701

To the extent that Jean Joyce’s testimony on this point constituted opinion testimony, such testimony was permissible under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 701 which allows a layman to testify in the form of an opinion when such “opinions . . . are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of [her] testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”

Rule 701 allows a nonexpert witness to give an opinion based on the witness’s own perceptions when it helps determine a fact in issue.

Martin v. Hare · filed 1985-12-17Rule 701

The testimony in question fully meets the requirements set forth in Rule 701. Krueger’s testimony was rationally based on his own perception of the boat in its undamaged condition prior to being loaded on the trailer and its damaged condition while still on the trailer after hauling, and it was helpful in determining a crucial fact in issue at the trial.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to estimate a vehicle’s speed in miles per hour from sound alone, though the witness may describe its speed in relative terms.

Hicks v. Reavis · filed 1985-12-17Rule 701(a)

If the perception is not adequate, there is no rational basis to support the opinion. Sound alone does not provide sufficient perception for a layman to have a rational basis for giving an opinion on actual speed.

Rule 701 requires a lay opinion to be helpful to the jury, even when Rule 704 permits an opinion on an ultimate issue.

Mobley v. Hill · filed 1986-04-01Rule 701

G.S. 8C-1, R. Ev. 704 does allow admission of lay opinion evidence on ultimate issues, but to qualify for admission the opinion must be helpful to the jury. R. Ev. 701. “[M]eaningless assertions which amount to little more than choosing up sides” are properly excludable as lacking helpfulness under the Rules.

Rule 701 excludes a witness’s opinion about whether another witness’s statements were consistent when that opinion does not help the jury understand the testimony or decide a fact in issue.

State v. Ramey · filed 1986-11-04Rule 701

The opinion and inferences of the witness as to whether the statements of the victim had been at all times consistent were not sufficiently “helpful to a clear understanding of [the witness’s] . . . testimony or the determination of a fact in issue” to be admissible in the present case. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1986).

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness who has not been qualified as an expert to opine on a child’s ability to fantasize about sexual abuse.

State v. Bowman · filed 1987-02-03Rule 701

Sergeant Lane was not qualified as an expert witness and was testifying as a lay witness. ... Since Sergeant Lane had not been qualified as an expert, she could not testify to this opinion.

Rule 701 permits lay testimony to establish the cause of an injured person’s disability in appropriate circumstances.

Phelps v. Duke Power Co. · filed 1987-07-21Rule 701

The recent North Carolina Rules of Evidence do not change this rule. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701. Plaintiff testified that, prior to the accident, he farmed at least twelve hours per day without getting tired, but that, after the accident, his diminished capacity to farm owing to fatigue has forced him to farm less and to give up farming his tobacco crop. We hold that this testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to establish causation.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness of ordinary intelligence to give an opinion about a vehicle’s speed after a reasonable opportunity to observe it.

Eason v. Barber · filed 1988-03-15Rule 701

Under Insurance Co. v. Chantos, supra and Rule 701, it is sufficient only that the witness be a person of ordinary intelligence and have had an opportunity to observe the incident. There is no indication in the present record that defendants’ witnesses lacked either ordinary intelligence or a reasonable opportunity to observe the incident. We therefore find that witnesses Lamberth and Hart were competent to testify on the speed of plaintiff’s motorcycle as it approached the intersection.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s own perceptions when it helps determine a fact in issue.

State v. Rhinehart · filed 1988-04-06Rule 701

It is crystal clear that both of these witnesses rendered lay opinions based upon their own personal perceptions. It is equally clear that these opinions were helpful to the determination of a fact in issue —namely, the precise nature of the sexual offense perpetrated by defendant. We find no error in the ádmission of these statements.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness with firsthand knowledge to give an opinion about a defendant’s sanity when the opinion could help the jury.

State v. Strickland · filed 1987-11-05Rule 701

We note that the adoption of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701, did not effect a substantive change in the law regarding the admissibility of lay opinions of sanity. The witness here had firsthand knowledge regarding defendant’s sanity and her opinion could have been helpful to the jury.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness’s opinion when it is based on the witness’s perception and helps explain the testimony or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Colvin · filed 1988-05-03Rule 701

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701, allows opinions by lay witnesses which are “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” We hold that Carthens’ statement meets the requirements of Rule 701 and there was no error in allowing this statement.

Rule 701 permits a witness to give a lay opinion about shoe wear patterns when the opinion is based on the witness’ observations and requires no specialized expertise.

State v. Shaw · filed 1988-07-28Rule 701

This opinion was lay opinion rationally based upon the perceptions of the witness. See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1986). Since this opinion required no expertise, defendant’s argument that this testimony was outside the witness’ realm of expertise is untenable.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on observation when it helps the jury determine a fact in issue.

State v. Banks · filed 1988-07-28Rule 701

Under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 701 a lay witness may testify in the form of an opinion if the opinion is “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1986). Deputy Cooper had ample opportunity to observe defendant both during the booking process and while they were together in the courtroom. Thus his opinion of defendant’s age was rationally based on his perception of defendant, and it was helpful to the jury in determining the age requirements of the crimes charged. It, therefore, comports with the requirements of Rule 701.

Rules 701 and 704 permit a lay witness whose opinion is based on personal knowledge to testify about fair rental value when the opinion helps the jury, even if it addresses an ultimate issue.

Zagaroli v. Pollock · filed 1989-06-06Rules 701 and 704

Rule 701 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence allows opinion testimony from lay witnesses only when “rationally based on the perception of the witness.” ... Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient personal knowledge to enable him to testify regarding his opinion. ... The rule does allow admission of lay opinion on the ultimate issue if the opinion is “helpful to the jury” and not merely “choosing up sides.” ... In this case, opinion testimony regarding the fair market value of the property trespassed upon was certainly helpful to the jury and was not merely choosing sides. The court correctly overruled defendants’ objection to the testimony.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to answer a hypothetical question when the question has a basis in the evidence.

Booher v. Frue · filed 1990-06-05Rule 701

Here, defendant asserts that the answers are inadmissible lay opinion under G.S. 8C-1, Rule 701. Defendant argues that Rule 701 “is generally stated to stand for the proposition that a lay witness may not testify in answer to hypothetical questions, especially those based on circumstances which are not in evidence.” These questions were asked to rebut defendant’s argument that plaintiffs were not damaged by the fee-splitting arrangement since Saunders’ “stock contract” was to receive one-third. Additionally, there was some evidence presented by defendant that Booher was present when the fee-splitting arrangement was discussed. Therefore, there is some basis in the evidence for the hypothetical question. We find no merit in defendant’s argument and overrule this assignment of error.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to explain what a statement meant to him when his opinion is based on his perception and helps the jury understand his conduct.

State v. McElroy · filed 1990-06-13Rule 701

Rutherford's testimony meets the requirements of Rule 701 in that it was both rationally based on his perception and helpful to the jury. Rutherford was explaining what the statement meant to him and thus what effect it had on him, and this testimony was helpful in explaining why Rutherford did not immediately report Johnson's death to law enforcement authorities. His testimony was properly admitted under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony that is rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the jury.

State v. Shook · filed 1990-07-26Rule 701

Epley's testimony satisfied the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 in that it was both rationally based on his perception and helpful to the jury. The questioned testimony went not to the defendant's intent, but simply related the witness' perception as to the defendant's state of mind and the effect it had on the witness. Such testimony was helpful in explaining the witness' testimony concerning why he subsequently asked the hospital not to assign the defendant to care for his wife. We conclude, therefore, that the testimony was properly admitted under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on the witness’s own perception when it helps determine a fact in issue.

State v. Murphy · filed 1990-08-07Rule 701

This opinion was clearly and rationally based on the witness’s own perception and was also helpful to the determination of whether and to what extent defendant had sexually abused the victim. As such, it comes within the requirements of Rule 701 and was properly admitted.

Rule 701 requires a lay witness’s opinion to be rationally based on the witness’s own perception.

Matheson v. City of Asheville · filed 1991-03-19Rule 701(a)

In the present case petitioners failed to present evidence that Mr. Adams had ever witnessed the City Fire Department’s response to a fire at the Brentwood Nursing Home under the conditions posited in the hypothetical question. As there was no foundation showing that the opinion called for was rationally based on the witness’s perception, the opinion was inadmissible.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on personal knowledge that helps the jury.

State v. Bunch · filed 1991-09-17Rule 701

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 Rule 701 (1988), opinion testimony from a lay witness is permitted when it is “rationally based on the perception of the witness” and is helpful to the jury. As long as the lay witness has a basis of personal knowledge for his opinion, the evidence is admissible. ... Since the evidence in this case was relevant, based on personal knowledge, and non-prejudicial, the trial judge did not err in admitting the police officer’s testimony.

Rules 602 and 701 exclude a lay witness’s opinion that lacks personal knowledge and does not help the jury understand the testimony or decide a fact.

State v. Shaw · filed 1992-06-16Rules 602 and 701

We agree that this portion of Officer Davis’ testimony, to which defendant objects, was not based on personal knowledge and was not helpful to the jury in understanding Officer Davis’ testimony, and therefore was inadmissible.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s perceptions when it is helpful to the jury.

Powell v. Peachtree Fasteners, Inc. · filed 1993-06-01Rule 701

Mr. Stevens’ testimony was admissible pursuant to G.S. 8C-1, Rule 701 since it was based on Mr. Stevens’ perceptions and was helpful to the jury.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to testify about a child’s behavioral patterns and symptoms characteristic of sexual abuse.

State v. Hutchens · filed 1993-06-01Rule 701

However, Allred’s testimony went well beyond constituting pursuant to Rule 701 a permissible lay opinion on the emotions D. displayed on a given occasion, specifically, during counseling sessions.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give opinions about a person’s emotions and physical responses when they are based on the witness’s perceptions and help explain the testimony or a fact in issue.

State v. Jennings · filed 1993-06-04Rule 701

This witness’s “opinions or inferences” as to the emotions displayed by defendant toward her husband, and her husband’s responses, manifested by a change in his physical aspect, were rationally based on the witness’s perceptions and were helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.

Rule 701 permits lay witnesses to give opinions based on their own perceptions when those opinions help the jury understand testimony or decide a fact in issue.

State v. Dukes · filed 1993-07-06Rule 701

Pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a lay witness may give testimony in the form of an opinion if that opinion is “a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701. ... In this case, each of the witnesses were required to provide foundation testimony which showed that their opinion was based upon their own perception of the defendant’s behavior. In addition, where the testimony was helpful to the jury in characterizing the defendant’s behavior immediately following the death of his wife, it was not error for the trial judge to permit the testimony.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on the witness’s perception when it helps explain the testimony or determine a fact in issue, including an immediate impression of another person’s demeanor.

State v. Eason · filed 1994-07-29Rule 701

However, Rule 701 allows a lay witness to testify in the form of an opinion if the opinion is “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” ... The comment “he was enjoying what he was doing” represents an instantaneous conclusion of the witness based on his perception of defendant’s appearance, facial expressions, mannerisms, etc. As such, it is a “shorthand statement of fact,” and defendant’s objection was properly overruled.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness’s shorthand statement of fact based on observation even when other evidence calls its accuracy into question.

State v. Alexander · filed 1994-07-29Rule 701

Officer Frank’s testimony with regard to what he saw in the photograph is best described as what the Court has characterized as a “shorthand statement of fact.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701, official commentary. ... Despite the fact that cross-examination and other testimony indicated that Officer Frank’s impression may not have been correct, there is no such requirement for the admissibility of such a statement. Defendants had an opportunity to and in fact did call the accuracy of Officer Frank’s testimony into question during cross-examination. We hold that it was not error to admit Officer Frank’s testimony; accordingly, defendants’ assignment of error on these grounds is overruled.

Rule 701 permits lay opinions based on a witness’s perceptions when they help explain the testimony or determine a fact in issue.

Bowden v. Bell · filed 1994-08-16Rule 701

In the case at hand, the witnesses’ testimony was rationally based on their perceptions and was helpful to a clear understanding of their testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness’s opinion when it is based on firsthand observations and helps explain the witness’s testimony.

State v. Westall · filed 1994-10-18Rule 701

Detective Smith expressed a lay opinion that he did not believe Minish, and this opinion was rationally based on his own firsthand knowledge and observations. This opinion was helpful to explain his earlier testimony, specifically as to why no notes were taken during the police interview, and was properly admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness’s inference when it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful in determining a fact in issue.

State v. Baker · filed 1994-12-30Rule 701

Assuming that the objected-to statement was an opinion or inference, we conclude the statement was admissible under Rule 701 as an inference “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to . . . the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1992).

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to testify that he possessed land when the testimony rests on his own experience and helps resolve a fact in issue.

Beam v. Kerlee · filed 1995-09-19Rule 701

Rule 701 of the Evidence Code, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, limits lay witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences to matters that are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of this testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. Since the defendant, as his own witness, testified he was in possession of the property (not that he owned it or had acquired title by adverse possession), and this testimony was based on his experiences on the land and was critical to the determination of the controversy before the trier of fact, such testimony was properly admitted.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion about a defendant’s mental state during a confession when it is based on the witness’s own observations and helps determine whether the confession was voluntary.

State v. Jones · filed 1996-02-09Rule 701

Sergeant King’s testimony meets the standards set forth in North Carolina Rule of Evidence 701. His opinion was rationally based on his perception of defendant at the time of the confession. Furthermore, it was necessary that he give his opinion as to defendant’s mental state at the time of the confession to help determine a crucial fact in issue, that is, that defendant voluntarily gave the statement to police.

Rule 701 allows a lay witness to give an opinion based on personal observation when it helps the jury determine a fact in issue.

State v. Kandies · filed 1996-02-09Rule 701

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to testify to opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. ... Based on his experience, it is likely that Sergeant Wilson could perceive the difference between blood and red oxide primer. ... We therefore conclude that the trial court properly allowed this testimony.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on personal observation that helps explain a fact in issue; uncertainty about the observation affects the evidence’s weight and credibility, not its admissibility.

State v. Mitchell · filed 1996-03-08Rule 701

However, we conclude that Smith’s testimony was not mere speculation, but was based on her personal observation of the bag. Lay witnesses are allowed to give opinions which are rationally based on perceptions of the witness and which are helpful to a clear understanding of a fact in issue. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1986); ... The fact that Smith was equivocal about the color goes to the credibility and weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s own perceptions when it helps clarify testimony or a fact in issue.

State v. Bishop · filed 1996-07-31Rule 701(a), (b)

In the case at bar, the testimony meets the requirements of parts (a) and (b) of Rule 701. The testimony was rationally based on the perception of the witnesses. ... The testimony was also helpful to a clear understanding of a fact in issue: whether Kaiser acted at the direction of defendant when he committed the crimes with defendant.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion about another person’s emotional state when it is based on the witness’s perception and helps explain the witness’s testimony.

State v. Fullwood · filed 1996-07-31Rule 701

Lay opinion on the emotional state of another is permissible if rationally based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony. ... At the time defendant’s mother was asked the question regarding defendant’s reaction to his brother’s death, no evidence had been presented that defendant’s mother had personal knowledge of defendant’s mental state. Although testimony was presented during voir dire to establish that defendant’s mother had personal knowledge sufficient to answer the question, defendant did not pursue the matter again before the jury. Thus, defendant has failed to show prejudicial error.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an immediate inference about a person’s state of mind based on firsthand observations.

State v. Boyd · filed 1996-07-31Rule 701

Craig Curry’s testimony that he believed that “[defendant was] going to kill everybody” clearly falls within the realm of lay testimony permitted by Rule 701 and State v. Williams.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give a shorthand statement of fact based on an instantaneous conclusion from observed facts.

State v. Johnston · filed 1996-10-11Rule 701

This rule permits evidence which can be characterized as a “shorthand statement of fact.” ... Griffin’s testimony that defendant was “going to do something” and that they did not have time to leave before defendant approached represented an instantaneous conclusion based on her observation of a variety of facts; and, as such, the testimony may be characterized as a “shorthand statement of fact.”

Rule 701 allows a lay witness to describe personal observations, but opinions about delirium or excessive medication require expert qualification.

Sherrod v. Nash General Hospital, Inc. · filed 1997-07-15Rule 701

She was not, however, qualified to testify as an expert and could not testify to whether the deceased showed symptoms of delirium or whether she was given too much medication while at NGH and such testimony was properly excluded.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion comparing shoe markings visible in a videotape with markings on actual shoes when the comparison requires only observation.

State v. Mewborn · filed 1998-12-01Rule 701

Lay opinion is admissible if the opinion or inferences are “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1996). ... Because the similarity between markings on shoes in a video image and markings on the actual pair of shoes can be made by “merely observing” the video and the shoes, we hold that this is also an appropriate subject for lay opinion.

Rule 701 permits a witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe a vehicle to give a lay opinion of its speed; the extent of that opportunity generally affects the testimony’s weight rather than its admissibility.

State v. Grice · filed 1998-10-06Rule 701

The opportunity of a witness to judge the speed of a vehicle under the circumstances of the case generally goes to the weight of his or her testimony rather than to its admissibility.

Rule 701 permits an officer’s lay opinion about a defendant’s understanding of his rights when the opinion rests on the officer’s own observations and helps determine whether the defendant’s statement was voluntary.

State v. Johnson · filed 2000-03-07Rule 701

If a police officer’s opinion is not based upon his own perception, then it would not qualify as lay opinion under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701. However, as was the case in Jones, the opinions of Detective Glover and Detective Ledford were based upon their personal perception of defendant at the time of the confession and helped the trial court determine the issue of the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion based on the witness’s own perception.

Byrd's Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2001-03-06Rule 701

We reject his argument. G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 permits a lay witness to testify as to opinions based on the witness’s own perception. Mr. Byrd testified that his opinion was based on his recollection of the revenues realized by plaintiff on the eight Summit contracts and his knowledge, based on experience, of plaintiff’s percentage of profit on gross sales. This assignment of error is overruled.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony identifying a substance when the opinion is based on the witness’s training and work experience.

State v. Greenlee · filed 2001-11-06Rule 701

Holden’s testimony was proper under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 as opinion testimony by a lay witness because it was based on his specialized training and work experience.

Rule 701 permits a police officer to give a lay opinion based on personal observations and investigative experience when it helps the jury understand the evidence.

State v. Ray · filed 2002-03-05Rule 701

Detective Hendricks offered a lay witness opinion based on his personal observations at the scene and his investigative training background as a police officer. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (1999) (lay witness may testify as to "those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue"); see also State v. Rich, 132 N.C.App. 440, 512 S.E.2d 441 (1999), aff'd, 351 N.C. 386, 527 S.E.2d 299 (2000) (police officer permitted to give lay witness opinion based on past experience and his encounter with the defendant).

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion about intoxication when it is based on personal observation and helps the jury decide a fact in issue.

Miller v. B.H.B. Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2002-09-03Rule 701

G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 provides that a non-expert may testify and provide opinions or inferences "which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." ... Her testimony was clearly based upon first-hand knowledge from personal observation. The testimony was also relevant and helpful to the jury since the issue of Beers' intoxication was an important issue of fact in light of plaintiff's contention that defendant continued to serve Beers alcohol after he had become intoxicated, and that defendant's manager then stood by and watched as Beers beat and kicked plaintiff after the manager had ejected plaintiff from the restaurant.

Rule 701 requires a lay witness’s opinion to be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury.

State v. White · filed 2002-12-17Rule 701

As a layman, Lieutenant Wood’s testimony must have been rationally based on his perception and helpful to the jury.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s observations when it helps explain the witness’s testimony or a fact in issue.

State v. Diaz · filed 2002-12-31Rule 701

Such testimony was rationally based on Bissett’s perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the determination of a fact in issue. Bissett did not state that it was his opinion that defendants were in possession of drugs. He was merely explaining why he was suspicious of defendants after observing their conduct. His testimony was helpful to the fact-finder in having a clear understanding of his investigative process. As such, it was admissible.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony when it is rationally based on the witness’s perceptions and helps determine a fact in issue.

In Re Will of McDonald · filed 2003-03-04Rule 701

In this case, the testimony at issue was rationally based on Haney’s perception of McDonald over the course of many dealings with her, and was also helpful to a determination of a fact in issue, whether McDonald was susceptible to influence in the time leading up to the execution of her will.

Rule 701 excludes a lay witness’s opinion about a defendant’s motive for confessing when it rests on a telephone conversation and a prior relationship rather than the witness’s perception.

State v. Roache · filed 2004-05-07Rule 701

The type of opinion to which Adams allegedly would have testified is not such a “shorthand statement of fact,” for the reason that it was not rationally based on her perception. Adams testified that she worked with defendant for six months approximately one and a half years before the murders of the Phillips family and that she had received three phone calls from defendant after he was arrested for these crimes. Testimony about a defendant’s motivation for confessing to a crime — where, as here, the opinion is based on a telephone conversation and a prior relationship with a defendant — is beyond the purview of Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits an officer’s lay opinion that a driver was impaired when the opinion is sufficiently based on the officer’s perceptions and observations at the scene.

State v. Speight · filed 2004-09-07Rule 701

Thus, as in Rich, Officer Montayne’s lay opinion that defendant was impaired was sufficiently based upon his perception of defendant and his observations at the scene of the accident.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness who reasonably observed a moving vehicle to estimate its speed without specialized training.

State v. Barnhill · filed 2004-09-07Rule 701

The North Carolina Rules of Evidence allow the opinion of a layperson to be admissible evidence if the witness is not testifying as an expert and his opinions or inferences are “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2003). ... Furthermore, it is not necessary that an officer have specialized training to be able to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony based on a witness’s perception when it helps explain the testimony or determine a fact in issue.

State v. Arnette · filed 2005-01-18Rule 701(a) and (b)

When explaining how defendant could not switch seats in the vehicle without being noticed, Corporal Hurley testified to his perception regarding a fact in issue: whether defendant was the driver of the stolen vehicle, or whether defendant switched seats in the vehicle before the officers arrested him. The State has satisfied both requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rules 701(a) and 701(b).

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion about a person's mental condition when it is based on the witness's observations and helps resolve a fact in issue.

State v. McClain · filed 2005-04-19Rule 701

Rule 701 of the Rules of Evidence permits lay witness opinion if it is "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of [her] testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2004). ... Thus, the trial court did not err in permitting Lowery to give her opinion as to defendant's mental capabilities.

Rule 701 permits a witness to give lay opinion testimony based on personal experience firing weapons without being qualified as an expert.

State v. Fisher · filed 2005-07-05Rule 701

Similarly, in the instant case, Detective Frady’s testimony regarding the location of shell casings when a bullet is fired from two different weapons was based-not upon any “specialized expertise or training,” but merely upon his own personal experience and observations in firing different kinds of weapons. Having failed to qualify Detective Frady as an expert in shell casing ballistics, the State was not prevented from eliciting lay opinion testimony from him.

Rule 701 limits lay opinions to those rationally based on the witness’s perception; opinions based on general information rather than personal knowledge cannot establish a factual dispute.

Duncan v. Cuna Mutual Insurance Society · filed 2005-07-05Rule 701(a)

N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2003), states in relevant part that testimony of a lay witness “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[.]” In the instant case, Ringer’s conclusions were based on: general information about methadone; plaintiffs hearsay testimony that Duncan told her he fell out of a tree and might see a doctor; and on two articles, one a “recent study” by the American Medical Association, the other a press release from the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. Because Ringer’s opinions were neither based on his personal knowledge, nor proffered as expert opinions, his affidavit does not meet the requirement of N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) that affidavits be “made on personal knowledge, [and] shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.”

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to compare a defendant’s gait with a robber’s gait when the comparison is based on the witness’s observations and helps identify the robber.

State v. Thorne · filed 2005-09-20Rule 701

Malfitano testified that he had observed defendant’s gait in the past, observed the robber’s gait on the videotape several times, and perceived the two gaits to be similar. Such testimony bore on the jury’s determination of the identity of the perpetrator. Accordingly, this evidence was not barred by Rule 701, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Captain Malfitano’s testimony.

Rule 701 limits lay witness opinions to those rationally based on the witness’s perception.

STATE EX REL. BANKING COMMISSION v. Weiss · filed 2005-10-18Rule 701

Appellants correctly contend that under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, lay witness testimony is limited to opinions rationally based on the perception of the witness. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2003). ... As King testified from personal knowledge as to the number, and not as to the validity of complaints received, and the Banking Commission made findings only to that effect, we find appellants’ assignment of error is without merit.

Rules 701 and 704 permit lay witnesses to give helpful opinions based on their observations, including shorthand descriptions that touch an ultimate issue.

State v. McVay · filed 2005-11-01Rule 701; Rule 704

Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, a lay witness may testify in the form of opinions or inferences only if the opinions or inferences are “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2003). “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 704 (2003). ... Here, the testimony by the officers amounted to nothing more than shorthand statements of fact based on their knowledge and observations.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to identify a substance when the opinion is based on the witness’s experience and perceptions and helps the jury decide a fact in issue.

State v. Yelton · filed 2006-01-03Rule 701

We conclude that the lay witness’ testimony was rationally based on the witness’ six years of experience with methamphetamine and her perceptions while smoking the substance and was, therefore, admissible under Rule 701 of the Rules of Evidence.

Rule 701 permits lay witnesses to give opinions about workplace exposure when those opinions are based on their own perceptions and help resolve a disputed fact.

Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 2006-03-07Rule 701

Lay witnesses can testify in the form of opinions or inferences “which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2005). Here, Jimmy Strickland and Robert McEwen testified that they regularly worked with asbestos, which was brittle and frequently crumbled, creating dust, in the shops that Williams supervised. As a result, Williams was exposed to this dust. We hold this testimony was rationally based on these lay witnesses’ perception of their working conditions. Thus, the. trial court did not err in admitting this testimony.

Rule 701 permits a detective to testify as a lay witness about procedures for questioning child sexual abuse witnesses when the testimony is supported by his experience and does not assess a witness’s credibility.

State v. Wallace · filed 2006-10-17Rule 701

Detective Landers’s testimony constitutes permissible lay witness testimony. Detective Landers’s nine years experience with the Concord Police Department and four years in the special victims unit dealing with rape, child molestation, and domestic violence victims supports his testimony on the procedure he uses for questioning child witnesses. Detective Landers did not offer an opinion on AW.’s credibility as a witness. The trial court did not err in admitting Detective Landers’s testimony.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness with relevant experience and knowledge of real property to give an opinion of its value when the opinion is based on the witness’s perception and helps determine a fact in issue.

Bluebird Corp. v. Aubin · filed 2008-02-19Rule 701

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Aubin’s testimony was “rationally based on the perception of the witness and . . . helpful to a clear understanding of h[er] testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”

Rule 701 permits officers to identify a substance as cocaine through lay opinion when their training and experience provide a rational basis for that opinion.

State v. Llamas-Hernandez · filed 2008-04-15Rule 701

Following the decision in Freeman, we are compelled to hold that the evidence with respect to both officers' training and experience in dealing with narcotics was sufficient to show a rational basis for their opinions that the substance found at Craig Avenue was cocaine, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting their testimony.

Rule 701 limits lay opinion testimony to opinions based on the witness's perception and helpful to the jury; an officer may not offer an inference that the defendant is guilty.

State v. Turnage · filed 2008-05-06Rule 701

Officer Armstrong testified as a lay witness, such that his opinions were properly limited to those "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2005). Nevertheless, we find Officer Armstrong's statements, particularly the first, to have impermissibly invaded the province of the jury, as he drew inferences from the evidence — a task reserved for the jury — to express an opinion as to Defendant's guilt.

Rule 701 permits a detective's lay testimony about the consistency of a victim's statements when it explains the investigation and helps the fact-finder determine a fact in issue.

State v. Bynum · filed 2008-11-18Rule 701

Detective Dunbar did not offer her opinion to prove that the victim had been sexually assaulted, or to vouch for her credibility when she took the stand during the trial. The purpose of her testimony was to explain why, after interviewing the victim, they proceeded to investigate the allegations made by the victim. Since the testimony explains the investigative procedure used in this case, Detective Dunbar's testimony was properly admitted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2007) as helpful to the fact-finder in determining a fact in issue.

Rule 701 governs an officer’s lay opinion testimony; an opinion about the usual weight of a rock of cocaine requires a foundation in training, personal knowledge, and experience with drug transactions.

State v. Reid · filed 2009-02-17Rule 701

Initially, we note that Corporal Wright was neither tendered as nor did he testify as an expert witness; therefore, the admissibility of his testimony is governed by Rule 701, supra. ... Absent a showing that Corporal Wright had training, personal knowledge, and experience in drug transactions, it was error to admit over objection his testimony with regard to "the weight of a rock of cocaine that's sold on the street[.]"

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to identify an object based on personal knowledge gained through law enforcement experience.

State v. Hart · filed 2009-03-03Rule 701

This experience provides an ample basis upon which the officer may have based his opinion that the object found was one that is typically used as a "crack pipe." We hold that this testimony formed a sufficient foundation upon which the trial court could reasonably conclude that the officer's opinion was based on personal knowledge.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to infer a transaction from guesswork rather than personal perception.

State v. Wilkerson · filed 2009-08-28Rule 701

Because the evidence supporting Mrs. Davis’ assumption that her husband sold drugs to defendant is not based upon personal knowledge or perception, and because her inference that a drug deal occurred is a supposition based largely on guesswork and speculation, we conclude that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to this testimony.

Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to identify someone in surveillance footage when the witness is no better positioned than the jury to make the identification.

State v. Belk · filed 2009-12-08Rule 701

Pursuant to the N.C. Rules of Evidence, admissible lay opinion testimony “is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2007). ... Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred by allowing Officer Ring to testify that, in her opinion, the individual depicted in the surveillance video was Defendant.

Rule 701 permits lay opinions based on the witness’s perceptions when they help determine a fact in issue.

State v. Williams · filed 2009-12-11Rule 701

Thus, Wood’s opinion was rationally based on his perception. Additionally, the location of the murders was a key issue linking defendant to the crime. Wood’s opinion whether the victims were murdered in the location where the vehicle was found or were killed inside the vehicle was helpful to the determination of a fact of the case and was thus admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701 does not admit a lay witness’s identification of a substance when the opinion rests solely on machine results rather than the witness’s own perception.

State v. Rambert · filed 2010-05-04Rule 701

Pursuant to Rule 701 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, [i]f the witness is not testifying as an expert, his 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 a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701. ... Such opinion testimony falls squarely within the realm of expert testimony and, thus, is not admissible as lay opinion.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony identifying cocaine when the opinion is based on the witness’s own observations.

State v. Craven · filed 2010-07-20Rule 701

However, Smith’s testimony that she and defendant had transported cocaine “eightballs” sold to Zbytniuk on 3 and 6 March 2008 in defendant’s mother’s car was admissible lay testimony under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness’s description of a photograph when it is a shorthand statement of observed fact.

State v. Ligon · filed 2010-08-17Rule 701

It is clear from this testimony that the officer’s notation constituted a shorthand rendition of his observations. The report reflects the officer’s instantaneous conclusions of the mind as to the appearance of the pictures. We therefore hold that the statement was a “shorthand statement of fact” such as has been deemed admissible by our Supreme Court.

Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony about bullet calibers when it is based on the witness’s personal experience and observations.

State v. Crandell · filed 2010-12-07Rule 701

In the instant case, we hold Rothrock’s testimony regarding the calibers of the projectiles ... retrieved from the Morris vehicle was testimony based upon Rothrock’s own personal experience and observations relating to various calibers of weapons, and was admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701 requires a foundation showing that a lay witness perceived the circumstances underlying an opinion about a hypothetical situation.

State v. Ziglar · filed 2011-02-01Rule 701(a)

Because a lay opinion must be rationally based on the perception of the witness, for Ziglar’s opinion to be admissible, some foundational evidence was required to show that Ziglar had, at some point, perceived his ability, while highly intoxicated, to slow down Hamby’s Camaro as it went through the curve on Lawsonville Avenue at between 60 and 70 miles per hour.

Rule 701 requires a lay opinion to help the jury understand testimony or decide a fact; a detective’s opinion that the defendant was guilty did not meet that requirement.

State v. Elkins · filed 2011-03-01Rule 701(b)

Rather, the foregoing statement is solely and simply an opinion of the ultimate issue of Defendant’s guilt, and as such, the statement’s admission was error.

Rule 701 does not permit lay witnesses to determine from their observations alone that a person with mild mental retardation who functions well in daily life meets the legal definition of mental disability.

State v. Hunt · filed 2011-05-03Rule 701

In this case, the witnesses did not, and as lay witnesses could not, give an opinion that Clara, who has mild mental retardation but is also functional enough to perform well in school and communicate well with others is “[m]entally disabled” as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-27.1(1), based only on their perceptions.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to identify a substance as blood based on personal observation without being qualified as an expert.

State v. Mills · filed 2012-06-19Rule 701

Opinion testimony given by a witness not testifying as an expert is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2011). ... The detectives’ testimony was properly allowed by the trial court.

Rule 701 permits a witness familiar with a defendant to identify that person in a videotape when the identification helps the jury.

State v. Collins · filed 2011-10-04Rule 701

“[A]dmissible lay opinion testimony ‘is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.’ ” Id. (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2007)). ... Therefore, in reviewing the evidence as a whole, we find Officer Stewart’s testimony did not prejudice defendant and in actuality was helpful to the jury due to Officer Stewart’s “dealings” with defendant.

Rule 701 permits a witness to describe a person’s observed manner and behavior through shorthand statements of fact.

State v. Dew · filed 2013-03-05Rule 701

When considered in context, the challenged testimony consisted of nothing more than a permissible discussion of the manner in which Becky communicated with Detective Curry, including the limitations to which Becky’s ability to recount past events was subject, based on Detective Curry’s observations during her meeting with Becky.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion about a person’s emotional state, but not a specific psychiatric diagnosis.

State v. Storm · filed 2013-07-02Rule 701

Her opinion was thus limited to the issue of defendant’s emotional state and she could not testify concerning a specific psychiatric diagnosis.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to compare signatures when the comparison is based on the witness’s perception and helps determine whether a document was forged.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2014-04-15Rule 701

Although Defendant argues that the jury should not have been allowed to hear Ms. Cartrette’s comments, we believe that her testimony describing the signatures was “rationally based on [her] perception” of the differences between those signatures and was helpful in determining whether the checks that Defendant presented for payment had been forged.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give a shorthand statement of fact based on the witness’s observations.

State v. Martinez · filed 2014-06-03Rule 701

Sergeant Ross’s testimony amounted to nothing more than a shorthand statement of fact based on her observation of the attack.

Rule 701 permits a law enforcement officer's lay testimony about an investigation when it is based on the officer's perceptions, helps the jury understand the investigation, and does not express an opinion on guilt.

State v. Bishop · filed 2015-06-16Rule 701

Detective Sykes' lay opinion testimony regarding his investigative process was admissible under Rule 701.

Rule 701 permits lay witnesses with personal knowledge to identify marijuana based on their perceptions.

In re R.B.L. · filed 2015-07-21Rule 701

Rule 701 permits testimony "in the form of opinions and inferences" from a witness who is not testifying as an expert if that testimony is "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 701 (2013). ... On this record, we find it difficult to discern how the trial court erred, let alone committed plain error, in allowing lay opinion testimony from Chad, Principal Stephans, and SRO Hayes that the substance contained in State's Exhibit 1 was marijuana.

Rule 701 allows a lay witness to give an opinion based on personal perception when it helps determine a fact in issue.

State v. Skinner · filed 2015-08-04Rule 701

Rhodes' testimony explained the basis for observations and actions taken in the course of his duties as an EMS provider responding to the scene of an accident. His testimony was rationally based on his perception, and thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Rhodes to testify that defendant's abdominal pain was an "indication that possibly [defendant] hit the steering wheel" when his vehicle rolled over. Further, Rhodes' testimony, if believed by the jury, would assist in a factual determination that defendant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Rule 701 permits a lay witness to give an opinion about intoxication when the witness’s observations provide an adequate basis for it.

State v. Morrow · filed 2014-07-15Rule 701

Simply put, given the level of contact between Ms. Donahoe and Defendant on the night in question, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Ms. Donahoe to express an opinion concerning the level of Defendant’s impairment.

Rule 701 permits an officer’s lay opinion about an informant’s reliability when it is based on the officer’s observations and helps the jury understand the investigation.

State v. Fox · filed 2016-07-19Rule 701

Mease's statement regarding Price's reliability in these instances was rationally based on his perception of Price and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony. His statement was helpful to the jury in understanding involving an informant in the investigative process. Therefore, admission of this portion of his testimony does not constitute error, much less plain error.

Rule 701 excludes a witness’s opinion vouching for another witness’s truthfulness because it does not help the jury decide a fact in issue.

State v. McLean · filed 2017-02-07Rule 701

Therefore, Lieutenant Butler’s opinion of Braddy’s veracity was not helpful to the jury and admission of this testimony amounted to error.