State v. Kelly

9 Citing cases

  1. Fowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    764 S.E.2d 249 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014)

    In State v. Kelly, our supreme court considered a similar situation in the context of a police officer testifying about the cause of an automobile accident. 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985). In Kelly, the defendant was convicted in magistrate's court of failing to stop at a stop sign, which resulted in an automobile collision.

  2. Fowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    764 S.E.2d 249 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014)

    In State v. Kelly, our supreme court considered a similar situation in the context of a police officer testifying about the cause of an automobile accident. 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985). In Kelly, the defendant was convicted in magistrate's court of failing to stop at a stop sign, which resulted in an automobile collision.

  3. Fowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    Appellate Case No. 2012-213250 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2014)

    In State v. Kelly, our supreme court considered a similar situation in the context of a police officer testifying about the cause of an automobile accident. 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985). In Kelly, the defendant was convicted in magistrate's court of failing to stop at a stop sign, which resulted in an automobile collision.

  4. Hamrick v. State

    426 S.C. 638 (S.C. 2019)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court erred because it "failed to make the necessary findings that the State established the foundation required by Rule 702"

    Officer Harris's testimony was not "lay" opinion, and the trial court erred by characterizing it as such.See Jackson v. Price , 288 S.C. 377, 379-80, 342 S.E.2d 628, 629-30 (Ct. App. 1986) (error to permit highway patrolman—who arrived after the accident—to testify as to point of impact (citing State v. Kelly , 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985) ("A police officer may not give his opinions as to the cause of an accident. He may only testify regarding his direct observations unless he is qualified as an expert."))).

  5. State v. Prince

    316 S.C. 57 (S.C. 1993)   Cited 39 times

    Moreover, there is no showing that he adequately interrogated these employees prior to trial. State v. Kelly, 285 S.C. 373, 329 S.E.2d 442 (1985). Accordingly, we deny Prince's petition for a new trial based upon after-discovered evidence.

  6. State v. Ostrowski

    435 S.C. 364 (S.C. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Holding the trial court erred in admitting lay opinion testimony about the meaning of "drug jargon" because the witness was not personally involved in the surveillance and "interpreted the messages based on his ‘general drug-investigation experience alone’ " (quoting United States v. Johnson , 617 F.3d 286, 295 (4th Cir. 2010) )

    At the outset, we note that law enforcement and other government officials are not permitted to offer opinions other than those that could otherwise be offered by lay witnesses. SeeState v. Kelly , 285 S.C. 373, 374–75, 329 S.E. 2d 442, 443 (1985) (finding a police officer "may only testify regarding his direct observations unless he is qualified as an expert."). See alsoFowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 410 S.C. 403, 410, 764 S.E.2d 249, 252 (Ct. App. 2014) (volunteer fire department chief not qualified as an expert could not provide opinion testimony about how fire started).

  7. State v. Gibbs

    431 S.C. 313 (S.C. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    For that reason, this case differs from cases in which emergency responders made statements that went beyond their direct observations. SeeFowler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 410 S.C. 403, 410, 764 S.E.2d 249, 252 (Ct. App. 2014) ; State v. Kelly , 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985). Here, the testimony is nothing more than the most rudimentary explanation of how someone discharges a revolver.

  8. Gulledge v. McLaughlin

    328 S.C. 504 (S.C. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Holding blood alcohol level relevant and thus admissible because corroborating evidence, including circumstances of accident, supported claim that driver was impaired

    See Jackson v. Price, 288 S.C. 377, 342 S.E.2d 628 (Ct.App. 1986) (error to permit highway patrolman to testify as to point of impact, but his testimony was cumulative to other testimony that defendant's car was over the center line at impact). See also State v. Kelly, 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985) ("A police officer may not give his opinions as to the cause of an accident. He may only testify regarding his direct observations unless he is qualified as an expert.

  9. Jackson v. Price

    288 S.C. 377 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 13 times

    We agree. See e.g. State v. Kelly, 285 S.C. 373, 374, 329 S.E.2d 442, 443 (1985) ("A police officer may not give his opinion as to the cause of the accident. He may only testify regarding his direct observations unless he is qualified as an expert,"); Willard v. McCoy, 234 S.C. 317, 108 S.E.2d 113 (1959) (judgment for plaintiff reversed because patrolman who was not an eyewitness testified regarding how many times a car overturned); Thompson v.South Carolina Highway Department, 224 S.C. 338, 79 S.E.2d 160 (1953) (error for highway patrolman who did not see accident to testify about speed of car). Cf. Robinson v. DukePower Co., 213 S.C. 185, 195, 48 S.E.2d 808, 812 (1948) (permitting patrolman who was not an eye witness to collision to testify regarding point of impact not prejudicial where witness determined point of impact from position of vehicles, broken glass and skidmarks and photographs collaborated his testimony).