The court should not have permitted the arresting detective to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in two surveillance videos. In this case, the alleged difference in appearance— the addition of eyeglasses—was de minimis, and the jury had access to photos of defendant without eyeglasses (see People v Reddick,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
