State v. Gore

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that lay testimony identifying a person in surveillance footage or photographs is not inadmissible merely because it bears on an ultimate issue. The court replaced the prior categorical bar with a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry focused on whether the testimony is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the jury, and concluded that the identifying witness’s longstanding relationship with the defendant supported admission. The court also upheld the denial of relief for juror misconduct because the unauthorized magnifying glasses neither introduced new evidence nor caused demonstrated prejudice.