Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 907 — EVIDENCE — OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 907.01 (2026)

Opinion testimony by lay witnesses

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
907.01907.01 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are all of the following:
907.01(1)(1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness.
907.01(2)(2) Helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
907.01(3)(3) Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of a witness under s. 907.02 (1).
907.01 HistoryHistory: Sup. Ct. Order, 59 Wis. 2d R1, R205 (1973); 1991 a. 32; 2011 a. 2.
907.01 AnnotationWhen a victim admitted injecting heroin about 72 hours before testifying, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s request that the witness display his arm in the presence of the jury in an attempt to prove that the injection was more recent. Edwards v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 105, 181 N.W.2d 383 (1970).
907.01 AnnotationAn attorney, not qualified as an expert, could testify regarding negotiations in which the attorney was an actor, including expressing opinions about the transaction, but could not testify as to what a reasonably competent attorney would or should do in similar circumstances. Hennig v. Ahearn, 230 Wis. 2d 149, 601 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2319.
907.01 AnnotationUsing Lay Opinion Evidence at Trial. Coaty. Wis. Law. May 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 4× “¶58 In 2008 at the time of Magett's trial, Wis. Stat. § 907.01 provided that: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of…”
State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3 (Wis. 2015). · cites it 3× “The treatment of sections 230.85(3)(b), 802.10(7), 809.”
Hennig v. Ahearn, 601 N.W.2d 14 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “Hennig further contends that even if the testimony were opinion testimony, it was admissible lay opinion under § 907.01, Stats. We agree that the trial court erred in excluding this testimony.”
State v. Romero, 432 N.W.2d 899 (Wis. 1988). · cites it 4× “] in the main to be honest, and with respect to this specific criminal case on these specific criminal charges, they believed her to be telling the truth." The state incorrectly claims that this is merely character evidence.”
State v. Chitwood, 2016 WI App 36 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Chitwood contends that Peskie's opinion testimony was scientific evidence and, thus, had to meet the Daubert test, now codified in Wis. Stat. §§ 907.01 and 907.02. It was scientific because " [t]he drug recognition evaluation protocol is technical and involves specialized…”
State v. Echols, 2013 WI App 58 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “See Wis. Stat. § 907.01 (2) (capitalization omitted).”
Tanner v. Shoupe, 596 N.W.2d 805 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “4 Tanner made the alternative argument, both at trial and on appeal, that Runyan's proffered testimony should have been admitted as a lay witness' opinions under § 907.01, STATS. However, opinions admitted under that statute are "limited to those opinions or inferences which are…”
Wester v. Bruggink, 527 N.W.2d 373 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “First, Wester argues that the assessment of point of impact is a scientific, expert opinion rather than a lay witness opinion rationally based on perceptions and, therefore, that the officer's opinion was not admissible as lay opinion testimony under § 907.01, Stats. Conversely,…”
State v. Werlein, 401 N.W.2d 848 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Section 907.01, Stats. The state argues that Martinson's testimony was presented not to prove its truthfulness but, rather, to describe the process that led to Larabee's arrest and later release.”
State v. Hansbrough, 2011 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Hansbrough contends that this testimony constituted inadmissible lay opinion testimony under Wis. Stat. § 907.01 . Hansbrough concedes that his trial counsel, Mark Richards, chose not to object to the challenged hearsay testimony but to proceed with cross-examination; however,…”
Ansani v. Cascade Mountain, Inc., 588 N.W.2d 321 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Opinion testimony by lay witnesses is limited pursuant to § 907.01, Stats., which states: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness's testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the…”
Poston v. Burns, 2010 WI App 73 (Wis. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 907.01 describes when a lay person can offer opinion testimony: Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 907.01(1) — 1 case
State v. Shaun M. Rutherford (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 907.01(2) — 1 case
State v. Echols, 2013 WI App 58 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “See Wis. Stat. § 907.01 (2) (capitalization omitted).”
— Wis. Stat. § 907.01(3) — 2 cases
State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3 (Wis. 2015). “The treatment of sections 230.85(3)(b), 802.10(7), 809.”
State v. Shaun M. Rutherford (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.