Home › South Carolina › South Carolina Rules of Evidence › Rule 701

Court Rules Network • courtrules.net

SCRE 701

Not legal advice. Verify against official sources before relying on this text in any legal matter.

Rule 701 Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony

← Previous Rule 615: Exclusion of Witnesses Next → Rule 702: Testimony by Experts

Rule Text

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 (a) are rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or training.

Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)

This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.

When a regular witness testifies in court, they normally can only talk about facts they saw or experienced firsthand. But sometimes a witness will naturally state a simple opinion along with the facts, and this rule explains when that is allowed.

A witness who is not an expert can share an opinion only if it meets three conditions. First, the opinion must come from something the witness actually saw, heard, or experienced themselves. Second, the opinion must help the jury or judge understand the testimony better or help them decide an important fact in the case. Third, the opinion cannot require any special training, skill, or knowledge to form.

For example, a witness could say someone "seemed drunk" or "was driving fast" based on what they observed. These are common sense observations anyone could make. But a witness could not give an opinion about something technical, like whether a car's brakes were faulty, because that takes special expertise. That kind of opinion has to come from an expert witness instead.

This rule keeps regular witnesses focused on sharing what they actually observed, while still allowing them to state simple, natural conclusions based on those observations. It stops witnesses from guessing about things they don't have the background to know.

Committee Notes

Note:

Except for the addition of subsection (c) and minor grammatical changes, this rule is identical to the federal rule. The language of subsection (c) is based on language contained in the rules of evidence of Florida and Tennessee, and is intended to emphasize the fact that lay persons may not give expert opinions.

Subsection (a) appears to be consistent with prior law. Cf. State v. Bottoms, 260 S.C. 187, 195 S.E.2d 116 (1973) (opinion must be based upon the personal observations of the witness and not merely upon the statements of another witness).

As to subsection (b), the prior case law has held that opinion evidence is admissible as long as it is not superfluous. State v. McClinton, 265 S.C. 171, 217 S.E.2d 584 (1974). This is roughly equivalent to saying that opinion evidence must be helpful.

As to subsection (c), the Court of Appeals has stated that expert testimony is essential where the topic is not a matter within the common knowledge and experience of most lay persons. Spartanburg Regional Med.Center v. Bulsa, 308 S.C. 322, 417 S.E.2d 648 (Ct. App. 1992); Armstrong v. Union Carbide, 308 S.C. 235, 417 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1992). Subsection (c) merely states this proposition in the reverse.

← Previous Rule 615: Exclusion of Witnesses Next → Rule 702: Testimony by Experts