IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41074
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRUCE A. HAMMOND,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CR-72-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 17, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bruce A. Hammond was convicted for possessing with intent to
distribute 762 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, Hammond argues
that the district court erred in allowing lay-witness opinion
into evidence. We review the district court’s ruling regarding
the admissibility of opinion testimony for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1282 (5th Cir. 1995).
Under Fed. R. Evid. 701, lay opinion is admissible if it is
based on personal perception, is one that a normal person would
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-41074
-2-
form from those perceptions, and is helpful to the jury. United
States v. Riddle, 103 F.3d 423, 428 (5th Cir. 1997). The witness
in question, Daniel Squires, was shown photographs of the vehicle
and opined that the plywood compartment containing the marijuana
was visible when the trailer was unhitched. Hammond argues that
the testimony was not helpful to the jury because it substituted
Squires’s opinion for their own. Although it is true that each
juror could form his own opinion as to whether the plywood
compartment was in fact visible from the front of the trailer
based on the photographs in evidence, any juror unfamiliar with
such trucks would not be able to form an opinion as to whether
the plywood compartment was a normal part of the trailer. This
is not an opinion as to the ultimate question of whether Hammond
had knowledge that the compartment contained marijuana, it was a
simple observation that a truck driver would have been able to
see the plywood compartment when the trailer was unhitched. This
opinion was an inference fairly drawn from Squires’s own
experience and the photographs of the vehicle. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it. See Riddle,
103 F.3d at 429.
AFFIRMED.