Williams v. State

I agree that this case should be affirmed, but I write separately because I cannot subscribe to the majority’s rationale for affirming the trial court’s decision to allow a state trooper to give “lay opinion” testimony that the $418 found on Williams at the time of his arrest indicated that he was a drug dealer. I nonetheless would affirm on this point because, even though the trial court clearly abused its discretion in admitting the testimony, the error was harmless.

The majority opinion blurs the distinction in our rules of evidence between lay opinion and expert opinion. They are not the…