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 adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances test requiring the testimony to be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to the fact finder, and concluded that the witness’s close relationship with the defendant and familiarity with his appearance supported admission. The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding no prejudice from jurors’ use of unauthorized magnifying glasses.