Evidence question

OFF THE WIRE
If there is no legal definetion or legal discription of what constitutes a helmet, if a cop or prosecutor attempts to describe what a helmet is , does it become hearsay evidence?
ANSWER
Objection by you on the basis there is no Foundation* for the statement.
Preliminary questions to a witness to establish admissibility of evidence. Laying a foundation is a prerequisite to the admission of evidence at trial. It is established by testimony that identifies the evidence sought to be admitted and connects it with the issue in question.


ANSWER
I can only tell you about NC.

In NC, there is no definition of helmet in the statute or in administrative code (NCAC). As you know, there is no definition of helmet within FMVSS 218. With that background in mind, here is how it went at my trials.

In district court, which is more of a hearing than an actual trial, the trooper was on the stand. I asked where to find the definition of helmet. He attempted to read from Websters. (By the way, if a LEO answers by reading something you should object. Objection: the witness is reading from something not in evidence rather than testifying. Wait for the judge to rule "sustained". If the witness does not respond, ask the question again).

The judge quickly prevented using the Websters definition as not legal reference. Regardless of that and everything else, I was found "responsible". I immediately appealed to Superior Court. I asked for a bench trial rather than jury trial, thinking that a bench trial would allow motions which would result in trying the law itself. (That didn't work out as well as I would have liked, because the judge only allowed the trial to be about findings of fact rather than conclusions of law, but it was a nice try and now we know). This time, when I asked the Trooper for the definition of helmet, he claimed that the definition was "the entirety of FMVSS 218". That caught me by surprise and had me a bit flabbergasted. I say this so that if this happens to anyone else, you can be ready for it. (I suggest showing the absurdity of that answer by having a couple of definitions from your state statutes with you (automobile, motorcycle), they are likely to be a sentence or two... Are you testifying that the definition of the whole motorcycle can be summed up in one sentence, but the definition of a helmet requires several pages? Your honor, I move for a ruling that there is no definition or the definition is vague, therefore the law is vague).
ANSWER
"....because the judge only allowed the trial to be about findings of fact rather than conclusions of law..."

Doesn't sound like a Judge. Sounds like it may have been a Referee or Commissioner.
If it was a Judge, the court made an error. Conclusions of law are rarely out of the realm of a Judge.

ANSWER
Actually, he didn't explain any of his decisions whatsoever. He was Judge Donald Stephens, Superior Court.