What is the rule regarding admissibility of lay opinions?

Lay opinions are admissible in court as long as they are rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact at issue. This means that the lay witness must have firsthand knowledge of the circumstances and their opinion must be derived from that knowledge. For example, if a lay witness observes a car accident and can describe what they saw and provide their opinion on how fast a car was traveling based on that observation, such opinion would be admissible.

This rule is designed to allow non-expert witnesses to provide insights that are within the scope of their own experiences and perceptions, enhancing the jury's understanding without requiring expert qualifications. The requirement for the opinion to be rationally based on perception ensures that the testimony is grounded in reality and maintains relevance to the case at hand.

In contrast, opinions that are not based on personal experience or do not assist in clarifying facts may not be allowed, reinforcing the structured admissibility of this type of evidence in court.