United States v. Yazzie

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992 · Evidence

976 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 701lay opinionapparent agereasonable belief of ageaffirmative defensehelpfulnessperception

Facts

Yazzie admitted having sexual intercourse with a fifteen-and-a-half-year-old minor on July 19, 1989, and his sole defense to the statutory rape charge was that he reasonably believed she was at least sixteen. He testified that he thought she was at least sixteen because she smoked cigarettes, drove a car, used makeup, and looked mature, and he said she never told him her age. Several defense witnesses were prepared to testify that, based on their observations at the time, they believed the minor was between sixteen and twenty years old. The district court allowed those witnesses to describe the minor's appearance and behavior but barred them from stating their opinions about her age.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by excluding lay witnesses' opinions that the minor appeared to be at least sixteen years old, where Yazzie's defense depended on whether his belief about her age was reasonable? If so, was the error harmless?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion testimony is admissible when it is rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful either to understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue. Lay opinions as to a person's apparent age are admissible when age cannot be adequately conveyed through description alone and when the opinion bears directly on a disputed issue such as the reasonableness of a defendant's belief about age.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albuquerque, Diego Romero is charged under a statute that criminalizes sexual contact with a person under sixteen but allows a defense if the defendant reasonably believed the person was at least sixteen. Diego says he thought Maya was sixteen because she looked older, wore makeup, and regularly drove herself to gatherings. Three neighbors who saw Maya that summer want to testify that, based on their firsthand observations, they believed she was at least sixteen.

If the trial judge excludes the neighbors' age opinions but allows them to describe Maya's appearance and conduct, what is the best ruling on appeal?

Explanation. Under Rule 701, lay opinion is admissible when rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to understanding testimony or determining a fact in issue. Apparent age is a proper subject for lay opinion when description alone may not adequately convey the witness's perception, and where the defendant's reasonable-belief defense makes apparent age a central fact. Excluding the opinions while allowing only descriptions improperly withholds the witnesses' actual conclusions.