Page 40 - TPA Journal May June 2022

Indeed, courts have also noted that not every scar events not normally encountered by most people in
amounts to serious permanent disfigurement. everyday life—such as someone biting off another
…. person’s earlobe—do not necessarily require the
While these cases involve the more demanding testimony of an expert. “It is only when the fact-
inquiry of legal sufficiency, they also demonstrate finder may not fully understand the evidence or be
that jurors can rationally draw conclusions that able to determine the fact in issue without the
some scars and injuries are not “serious” enough assistance of someone with specialized knowledge
to rise to the level of serious bodily injury even that a witness must be qualified as an expert.”
though the scars unquestionably amount to
“permanent disfigurement.” In this case, the jury would have been able to
understand the nature and the seriousness of
Moreover, “serious bodily injury” may be Sughrue’s disfigurement without the assistance of
established without a physician’s testimony when expert testimony. In fact, the jurors had the
the injury and its effects are obvious. We have opportunity to observe Sughrue’s injury with their
previously held that a lay witness’s opinion own eyes, both through photographs showing the
testimony supported a finding of serious bodily injury at the time it was inflicted and through
injury, which suggests that lay opinion testimony Sughrue exhibiting the healed injury during his
can also be used to negate that element. testimony. Though the court of appeals correctly
held that a jury could have rationally found that
If lay witness testimony can rationally provide Sughrue’s injury amounted to serious permanent
some evidence from which a jury can infer the disfigurement when viewing the bloody crime
severity of a particular injury, then the converse is scene photographs, the jury could have also
equally true, at least under the facts presented in rationally found that Sughrue’s injury was, as
this case. In this regard, we agree with the court of Appellant testified, not serious, when it viewed, for
appeals. Just as the State could rely in this case on example, this photograph of Appellant’s
Sughrue’s lay opinion testimony to establish injured ear:
permanent disfigurement, Appellant could rely on
lay opinion testimony to cast doubt upon whether …
that disfigurement was serious.
Accordingly, a lay witness could properly testify in
Moreover, Appellant’s lay opinion testimony was the form of an opinion about whether the
appropriate under the facts of this case. Generally, amputation of Sughrue’s left earlobe constituted
a lay witness’s observations which do not require serious permanent disfigurement.
significant expertise to interpret, and which are not
based on a scientific theory, are admissible if they Second, Appellant’s testimony was proper under
satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence Rule 701. Under Rule 701 of the Texas Rules of
701. Because the nature of the injury does Evidence, a lay witness can testify in the form of an
not require significant expertise to understand and opinion if the opinion is (a) rationally based on the
the requirements of Rule 701 were met, Appellant’s witness’s perceptions, and (b) helpful to the clear
testimony could provide a valid, rational alternative understanding of the testimony or the
to the greater offense of aggravated assault. determination of a fact in issue. Perceptions refer
First, the State’s treatment of the nature of the to a witness’s interpretation of information
injury at issue demonstrates that the injury did not acquired through his or her own senses or
require significant expertise to evaluate. Even experiences at the time of the event. Thus, the

36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal