Some trial courts have admitted such testimony while others have ruled that the underlying data was unreliable. See State v. Christopher Kevan Hein, No. E2003-01793-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1269304, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 9, 2004) (concluding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow an expert to testify in rebuttal about "generalized [information] on false confessions and police interrogation techniques"), perm app. denied (Tenn. October 11, 2004); State v. Matthew Kirk McWhorter, No. M2003-01132-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1936389, at *10 (Tenn.
Tennessee courts have concluded that similar testimony by a police officer is inadmissible. See State v. Smith, 42 S.W.3d 101, 112 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000); State v. Christopher Kevan Hein, No. E2003-01793-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1269304, *9-10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 9, 2004), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 11, 2004) (concluding that "the challenged testimony was not admissible as the opinion of lay witnesses"). The state asserts that the purpose of the inquiring into the tendencies of other suspects on redirect examination by the state was to explain the actions of Sergeant Mullins in failing to prepare formal statements.
Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701 provides that a lay witness's opinion testimony is limited to opinions or inferences which are "(1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." State v. Christopher Kevan Hein, No. E2003-01793-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1269304, at *9 (Tenn.Crim.App., Knoxville, June 9, 2004) (citing Tenn. R. Evid. 701(a)). Because it is the jury's duty to draw conclusions from the evidence presented, a "non-expert witness must ordinarily confine his testimony to a narration of facts based on first-hand knowledge and avoid stating mere personal opinions."State v. Middlebrooks, 840 S.W.2d 317, 330 (Tenn. 1992), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689 (Tenn. 2001).
Id. at 837-38. In his reply brief, the defendant argues that in State v. Christopher Kevan Hein, No. E2003-01793-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1269304 (Tenn.Crim.App. June 9, 2004), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 11, 2004), this court held that "expert testimony which is particularized to the eyewitness testimony is admissible." Further, he notes that if Coley adopted a per se rule against any expert witness testimony, "then surely the Chief Justice would not have authorized funding for the hiring of Dr. Loftus by the defense."