Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida 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).