¶ 19 In a case published after the parties in this case filed their briefs, the appellate court in the Second District addressed arguments identical to the ones the defendant makes here. In People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 9, 374 Ill.Dec. 338, 995 N.E.2d 477, the defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a weapon as a felon while wearing body armor of the type described in section 33F–1(a)(2) of the Code. Section 33F–1(a)(2) of the Code defines body armor as “[s]oft body armor which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material or metal or any other type of insert and which is lightweight and pliable and which can be easily concealed under a shirt.”

¶ 62 As argued by defendant, "a lay witness should not be permitted to testify to a legal conclusion." People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10, 995 N.E.2d 477. We agree that the State's question in this instance elicited a legal conclusion from Taylor regarding whether a specific act constitutes a sexual assault and find it was improper.

We noted that generally lay witnesses may testify about the nature of a substance they observe and with which they are familiar and that their testimony may even take the form of a conclusion as to what the substance is. People v. Richardson , 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 12, 374 Ill.Dec. 338, 995 N.E.2d 477. Accordingly, we affirmed defendant's conviction. Id. ¶ 24.

¶ 51 Whether to admit evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10, 374 Ill.Dec. 338, 995 N.E.2d 477. The Illinois Rules of Evidence 701 provides: “If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' 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 the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”

People v. Jaron R. RichardsonLower Court: 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, 374 Ill.Dec. 338, 995 N.E.2d 477 Disposition: Denied.

"It does not violate the personal knowledge rule to allow witnesses to testify to their observations so long as they do not provide their own interpretation of those observations." See People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10 (a witness' opinion may be admitted if the opinion is based on the witness' personal observations, is one that a person is generally capable of making, is helpful to a clear understanding of an issue at hand and does not provide a legal conclusion).

¶ 116 Although a lay witness may not testify as to a legal conclusion at issue, a lay witness may express an opinion on an issue if that opinion will assist the trier of fact. People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10. Further, a lay witness "may provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in a case."

Thus, "as long as the opinion is based on the witness's personal observation, is one that a person is generally capable of making, and is helpful to a clear understanding of an issue at hand, it may be admitted." People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10. ¶ 54 The testimony of the officers was properly admitted because it was based on their personal observations.

¶ 48 It does not violate the personal knowledge rule to allow witnesses to testify to their observations, so long as they do not provide their own interpretation of those observations. See People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10 (if the opinion is based on the witness' personal observation, is one that a person is generally capable of making, is helpful to a clear understanding of an issue at hand, and does not provide a legal conclusion, it may be admitted). Since the trial court allowed Officer David to testify that, based on his observation, the vehicle seen in the surveillance footage prior to the shooting appeared to be a red Nissan SUV similar to the one he saw in the alley, but the trial court did not accept any testimony from him that it was the same red Nissan SUV, it did not abuse its discretion in allowing such testimony.

A lay witness should not be permitted to testify to a legal conclusion at issue. See People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (2d) 120119, ¶ 10, 995 N.E.2d 477. The prosecutor's question was not simply to elicit a lay witness opinion under Illinois Rule of Evidence 701 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (rationally based on his perception and helpful to a determination of a fact in issue) but sought instead a legal conclusion that the actions he described constituted "strangulation" as defined by statute.