People v. Thompson

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly admitted lay opinion testimony of four police officers who identified defendant from video recording of attempt to procure anhydrous ammonia. Appellate Court, in reversing defendant’s conviction on charge of illegal procurement of anhydrous ammonia, found that officers’ identifications of defendant as culprit in video were inadmissible since they did not satisfy requirements of Starks, 456 N.E.2d 262, where: (1) officers did not show that they had better perspective than jury to interpret instant surveillance video; and (2) no officer indicated that defendant’s appearance had changed from date of crime to date of trial.