The People v. Farod Mosley

Summary

The court held that non-eyewitness lay identification testimony may be admitted only when, considering the totality of the circumstances, the witness is sufficiently familiar with the defendant to provide reliable assistance and the jury would likely benefit from that assistance. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting a detective's identification testimony because the detective had limited familiarity with the defendant, lacked knowledge of his appearance at the time of the crime, and offered no distinctive feature tied to the blurry video. The error was not harmless because the video and detective's testimony were the only evidence connecting the defendant to the shooting, so the court reversed and ordered a new trial.