SCRE 701

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.

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.