State v. Randolph, 2019 Ohio 307

On Dec. 25, 2017, a T‑bone collision occurred at the intersection of SR‑4 and SR‑54; a Kia Sedona (Wagner) struck the passenger side of a small white car.
Occupants of the white car were Brad Randolph and Christin McKenzie; witnesses observed a man in the driver’s seat and a crying/injured female passenger after the impact.
Firefighter/EMT Capt. Andrew Goings responded, observed McKenzie with a head laceration and glass on her right side, and told medics and law enforcement that her injuries were consistent with being the passenger.
Deputy Hopkins, informed of Goings’s observations, confronted Randolph, who claimed he was the passenger; Randolph was warned he could be charged for lying but maintained his statement.
Randolph was indicted on two counts of driving under suspension, one count of failure to stop at a stop sign, and one count of obstructing official business (based on his claim that he was not the driver).
At trial, defense witnesses (including Randolph and McKenzie) testified McKenzie was driving; the jury convicted Randolph on all counts. Randolph appealed, arguing the court erred by admitting Goings’s opinion testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay opinion testimony by firefighter/EMT about which occupant’s injuries were consistent with being passenger	State: Goings’s testimony was admissible as lay opinion under Evid.R. 701 because it was based on his firsthand perceptions and aided the jury in determining who was driver	Randolph: Goings’s testimony constituted improper opinion testimony outside common‑knowledge scope and should have been excluded or treated as expert testimony under Evid.R. 702	Court affirmed: Goings’s testimony was rationally based on firsthand observations and his experience as an EMT/firefighter; it was helpful to the jury, so admission was not an abuse of discretion

State v. McKee, 91 Ohio St.3d 292 (Ohio 2001) (lay witnesses may give opinion evidence based on personal knowledge and experience in areas ordinarily thought to require expertise)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Marshall, 946 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio App.) (trial court has considerable discretion admitting lay opinion testimony)
Hetzer-Young v. Elano Corp., 66 N.E.3d 234 (Ohio App.) (line between lay and expert opinion can be blurred; lay opinion permitted when based on firsthand observations and helpful)
State v. Jones, 43 N.E.3d 833 (Ohio App.) (police witness testimony about typical behavior can be admissible as lay opinion based on experience)