From a recent appellate opinion:

Q. And tell me why you did that. Why did you call for an ambulance?

A. Because she had just had the crap beat out of her and she needed immediate medical attention.

[Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. She testified she thought she needed medical attention, but "he beat the crap out of her" is speculation on her part. It's a characterization.

THE WITNESS: I used to be an EMT, so I do have medical training.

[Defense went on to complain that the officer was not an expert witness on beatings and should not be allowed to testify. Judge disagreed. Appellate explanation is provided below. Nicely written.]

In this case, Officer Fletcher testified that she responded to two separate disturbance calls at Maggie's residence. At the first call, Maggie told Officer Fletcher that James had assaulted her; she said that James had choked her, and she pointed out a small cut on her leg and a mark on one of her arms where she said James had grabbed her. Officer Fletcher observed that Maggie was "kind of shaking" and had been crying.

At the second call, before knocking on the front door, Officer Fletcher heard yelling, screaming, and "banging around" from inside Maggie's house. She testified that it sounded like someone or something was getting thrown around. When Maggie opened the front door, Officer Fletcher observed that Maggie looked different than she did at the first call--her face was covered in blood, her left eye was "completely bruised and swollen shut," she had blood coming out of her eye, and she had a cut on her swollen face. Maggie was also crying and very upset, and she told Officer Fletcher, "he did this to me." Officer Fletcher interpreted Maggie's statement to be in reference to James, who was the only other person there.

Officer Fletcher's opinion that Maggie "had just had the crap beat out of her" was thus based on and derived from her cumulative personal knowledge that James and Maggie had a physical altercation earlier in the evening; that she heard yelling, screaming, and "banging around" from inside Maggie's house; that Maggie answered the door with a swollen, bloody face and a swollen, shut eye that she did not have at the first call; and that Maggie told her that James "did this." See Fairow, 943 S.W.2d at 898. Based on her personal knowledge of these facts, her opinion was also rational. See id. Accordingly, Officer Fletcher's opinion that Maggie "had just had the crap beat out of her" was rationally based on events that she personally perceived during the calls at Maggie's residence and, therefore, met rule 701's criteria that opinion testimony by a lay witness be based on events that the witness personally perceived. See Tex. R. Evid. 701.

Regarding rule 701's other requirement, Officer Fletcher's opinion was helpful to the determination of a fact in issue in the case: whether James assaulted Maggie. See id.

I excluded a "DWI expert" in a case once. The witness was a friend of the defendant who wanted to testify that she had seen the defendant drunk on many occasions, she had watched the tape (she was not with him the night of the offense), and that he did not "appear" intoxicated to her on the tape. We took her on voir dire. First thing the judge did was ask her to say and spell her name for the court reporter.

The Court: "Now state and spell your last name for the record."
A: "Johnson. J as in..............(longest pause EVER) ................giraffe, o-h-n-s-o-n."
The Court: "OK. Now, You've designated her as an expert, correct?
Defense Attorney: Yes.
The Court: In what area?

No one ever really figured out why she needed to say the "as in" part. And to this day I still wonder about the answer to the court's last question.

Hey!!! That was my case!!! I actually laughed when the defense lawyer argued that the cop not qualified to say that the victim had the "crap beat out of her."

RCC - I was actually thinking about putting our indecent exposure transcript in a response, but realized that it would be way too much to try to type into the forums. Dang, that case still cracks me up.

I had a guy on trial once who was accused of masturbating in the car next to a woman on a city street. He insisted that the lady in the van next to him mistook a corn dog that he had stuck between his legs as being his penis. After having him detail the physical properties of a corn dog as opposed to his penis, and making sure he hadn't been doing anything obscene to the corn dog, I asked him, "has anyone ever seen your anatomy and said 'My, God, that looks like a corn dog!?' The guy turned 50 shades of red and quite adamntly stated "no...NO!" The judge's, his defense counsel's and the court reporter's laughter was not entered on the record. He was duly and legally convicted.

Dang! I used to like corn dogs.