significant injuries. ¶ 19. The photographs of Hicks’s injuries, however, show that he had only minor scratches following the attack on his mother. The evidence at trial contradicts his testimony that he acted in self-defense. Hicks testified that he did not hit his mother with the ironing board; rather, he had only tried to push her away with it. Hicks testified that when he left his mother in the house after the attack, she just had “a few nicks” on her. The photographs and testimony contradict both of those claims. Further, Officer Kufel testified that when he went to the crime scene to photograph it and to gather evidence, he did not find a steak knife. ¶20. An officer is allowed to describe his first-hand observations of injuries. See Seal v. Miller, 605 So.2d 240, 244 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>). However, officers may not give expert
holding that a written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer holding that attorneys testimony was not relevant to any issues contained in the appellants pleadings and that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the attorneys testimony could not be gained from any other witness or source holding that testimony from an officer that she did not perceive any evidence to indicate that a car had spun before hitting a pole did not require any special expertise or skill it was enough that the witness had firsthand knowledge of what was present at the scene holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time