THE PEOPLE v. FRANCIS ANTHONY TRIBBLE (2010)

XIII. Lay Opinion Testimony

Tribble claims that the trial court erred by allowing lay witnesses to express prejudicial opinions.   He notes that Entine testified, “I thought ․ this guy [was] going to kill somebody for sure.”  “A lay witness may testify to an opinion if it is rationally based on the witness's perception and if it is helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony.”  (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 153.)

Tribble claims Entine's comments were improper lay witness speculation.   But Tribble did not object on this ground at trial.   He consequently waived this claim.  (People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 153.)   But, even so, he has not shown prejudice.   Entine said he had to pull to the right to avoid a head-on collision.   His remark that Tribble was “going to kill somebody” is the way most people would describe the actions of a person driving on the wrong side of the road.   A reasonable juror would understand that and consider the remark in that context.   Moreover, the only reasonable inference from the way Tribble was driving is that he was likely to kill someone.  (Bartlett v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 392, 400-401 [even if the opinion should have been excluded there was no reversible error as the underlying facts would ultimately lead to the same result].)

We have reviewed Tribble's remaining contentions and conclude he has not shown reversible error.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

COFFEE, J.

Rand S. Rubin, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

Tarlow & Berk, PC, Barry Tarlow, Mi Kim for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane E. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.