BAKER, J.
In this case, one of the issues with which we are presented is whether a trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police detective to testify as a skilled witness that the denominations of money found on the defendant were indicative of drug dealing. While skilled witnesses need not satisfy the onerous requirements for expert witnesses under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, they must satisfy the two requirements under Indiana Evidence Rule 701, namely, that their testimony be rationally based on their perception and helpful to a clear understanding of their testimony or a fact in issue. The trial court concluded that the police detective’s testimony satisfied both requirements. We cannot agree, but the error was harmless.
. . . .
Davis argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing Detective Tatum to testify as a skilled witness that the denominations of currency found on Davis were indicative of drug dealing. Our Supreme Court has stated that “[a]lthough a witness may not be qualified to offer expert testimony under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 [(Rule 702)], the witness may be qualified as a „skilled witness‟ (sometimes referred to as „skilled lay observer‟) under Indiana Evidence Rule 701 [(Rule 701)].” Kubsch v. State, 784 N.E.2d 905, 922 (Ind. 2003) (internal citations omitted). More particularly, a “skilled witness is a person with „a degree of knowledge short of that sufficient to be declared an expert under . . . Rule 702, but somewhat beyond that possessed by ordinary jurors.‟” Id. (quoting 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Evidence § 701.105, at 318 (2d ed. 1995)). Nevertheless, pursuant to Rule 701, the skilled witness‟s opinion must 7
be rationally based on the witness‟s perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness‟s testimony or a determination of a fact in issue. Id.
Both parties direct us to Davis v. State, 791 N.E.2d 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). In Davis, the defendant was on trial for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and a police sergeant was permitted to testify as a skilled witness regarding the amount of cocaine carried by a drug user as opposed to a drug dealer. Id. at 269. On appeal, this Court affirmed, stating that the sergeant’s opinion was rationally based on his personal experience as an investigator. Id. Furthermore, the Davis Court reasoned that “[h]is testimony was helpful in determining the issue of intent to deliver because [it] established the distinct characteristics that differentiate between a drug user and a drug dealer.” Id.
The facts and circumstances in this case are distinguishable from those in Davis. In this case, Detective Tatum testified that he processed $466 that Detective McClelland had collected from Davis’s pocket, consisting of “thirty-one $1 bills, thirteen $5 bills, five $10, and sixteen $20 bills.” . . . Detective Tatum testified that from his experience, this was indicative of drug dealing. . . . However, we find this conclusion too speculative, inasmuch as the money could have come from tips, a recent visit to the bank, or many other legal sources.
Moreover, Davis was on trial for and convicted of class C felony possession of cocaine rather than dealing in cocaine. Accordingly, Detective Tatum’s testimony fails to satisfy the requirement under Rule 701 that skilled witness testimony be helpful to a determination of a fact in issue.
Nevertheless, we decline to reverse Davis’s conviction on this basis because the error was harmless.
Kirsch, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.