MALAKHOV v. STATE (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Yury MALAKHOV, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D23-1105

Decided: January 02, 2025

Before LINDSEY, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 28–29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“Police officers and lay witnesses have long been permitted to testify as to their observations of a defendant's acts, conduct, and appearance, and also to give an opinion on the defendant's state of impairment based on those observations. Objective observations based on observable signs and conditions are not classified as ‘scientific’ and thus constitute admissible testimony.” (citations omitted)); State v. Meador, 674 So. 2d 826, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“In general, lay witnesses have been permitted not only to testify as to their observations of a defendant's acts, conduct, appearance and statements, but also to give opinion testimony of impairment based on their observations.”); see also § 90.701, Fla. Stat. (providing that “the [lay] witness's testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when” the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are met).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network