State v. Williams

Summary

The dissent would hold that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert testimony concerning eyewitness identification. It reasons that the record did not establish that the sole eyewitness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant to eliminate the risk of misidentification, and that the exclusion was harmful because the prosecution's case depended heavily on that identification. The dissent therefore would reverse the judgment, although the controlling disposition is not stated in the supplied text.