permitting lay testimony from police that a wound was made from "a small caliber weapon" because it "did not require expert ballistics tests or knowledge" and the witness was "not asked to identify the caliber but only its relative size"
How later courts described this case
- permitting lay testimony from police that a wound was made from "a small caliber weapon" because it "did not require expert ballistics tests or knowledge" and the witness was "not asked to identify the caliber but only its relative size"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DOMENGEAUX, Judge,
concurring.
I agree completely with the majority opinion, but in keeping with my position on the review of facts doctrine I reiterate the views stated in my previous concurring opinion in State v. Gatson, 434 So.2d 1315 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983). I feel that the continued application of the review of facts rationale set out in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, and State v. Mathews, 375 So.2d 1165 (La.1979), results in our appellate courts becoming nothing more than second guessers of the triers of fact.