Grant

DISCUSSION

I Grant argues expert testimony was required to explain the effects of alcohol and marijuana consumption to the jury and to proffer a defense that the use of a flashlight could have prevented Grant’s fall. At the time of the trial court’s in limine ruling, Morse did not seek to offer lay opinion testimony that Grant was intoxicated. Rather, Morse proposed to present evidence about how much wine Grant had consumed, that Grant smoked marijuana at the party, and about any conduct by Grant that would indicate Grant was intoxicated. Such testimony was admissible. (See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 621-622 [finding no error in allowing a lay witness to testify about his observations of another individual’s behavior]; Dickey v. Dunn (1927) 80 Cal.App. 724, 728 [holding that witnesses’ testimony as to observed facts was properly admitted].) The claim that evidence of the observations of lay witnesses is inadmissible in the absence of expert testimony regarding the effects of alcohol and/or marijuana consumption is without merit. Regarding the flashlight evidence, expert opinion testimony is not required when the subject of the testimony is not beyond the common…