Skip to main content

Flowers v. State

Citations

  • 282 S.W.3d 767
  • 373 Ark. 127
  • 2008 Ark. LEXIS 245

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that, under Rule 701, it was not error to allow an officer to testify based on experience, training, and observation that, in his opinion, glass on a truck had been broken from outside rather than inside
  • lay witnesses may provide opinions that are rationally based on their “experience, . . . training, and personal observation”
  • testimony of an officer that a truck’s window had been broken on the outside did not require expert testimony because the officer’s testimony was rationally based on his experience, forensic training, and personal observation
  • testimony of an officer that a truck’s window had been broken on the outside did not require expert testimony because the officer’s testimony was rationally based on his experience, forensic training, and personal observation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tom Glaze

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.