YURY MALAKHOV
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lay witnesses and police officers are permitted to testify based on their direct observations of a defendant's acts, conduct, appearance, and statements, and to give opinion testimony regarding impairment based on those observations, without such testimony being classified as scientific evidence.
[1] Lay witnesses and police officers may testify regarding their direct observations of a defendant's acts, conduct, appearance, and statements, and may give opinion testimo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Police officers and lay witnesses have long been permitted to testify as to their observations of a defendant's acts, conduct, and appearance, and also to give an opinion on the defendant's state of impairment based on those observations. Objective observations based on observable signs and conditions are not classified as 'scientific' and thus constitute admissible testimony.”
Cited from Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 28–29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
Yury Malakhov was convicted in County Court for Miami-Dade County. The conviction appears to involve impairment-related charges based on lay witness a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1105 Lower Tribunal No. AD48UTE
________________
Yury Malakhov,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lizzet Martinez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24, 28–29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“Police officers and lay witnesses have long been permitted to testify as to their observations of a defendant’s acts, conduct, and appearance, and also to give an opinion on the defendant’s state of impairment based on those observations. Objective observations based on observable signs and conditions are not classified as ‘scientific’ and thus constitute admissible testimony.” (citations omitted)); State v. Meador, 674 So. 2d 826, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“In general, lay witnesses have been permitted not only to testify as to their observations of a defendant’s acts, conduct, appearance and statements, but also to give opinion testimony of impairment based on their observations.”); see also § 90.701, Fla. Stat. (providing that “the [lay] witness’s testimony about what he or she perceived may be in the form of inference and opinion when” the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) are met).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Meador, 674 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)