Can the jury disregard the testimony of two police officers in a civil case?

(concerning lay opinion evidence), both of which had already been provided to the jury. The jury had received extensive instructions defining circumstantial and direct evidence. The instructions given to the jury were full and complete. The trial court correctly informed the jury that the video was direct evidence, and that the officers' testimony was lay opinion testimony, which must be considered under CALCRIM No. 333. Although the court did not characterize the opinion testimony as circumstantial evidence (see People v. Gentry (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 607, 611 [opinion evidence is circumstantial]), we can discern no possible prejudice. Like CALCRIM No. 224, CALCRIM No. 333 instructed the jury that "You must decide whether information on which the witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence." The jury clearly understood that it was free to disregard the officers' opinions.

The judgment is affirmed.