Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mobutu THORNHILL, Defendant-Appellant.
    15-2147
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 30, 2016
    FOR APPELLANT: Andrew Patel, Esq., New York, NY.
    FOR APPELLEE: Rebecca Mermel-stein (with Anna M. Skotko on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO GALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges,
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Mobutu Thornhill appeals from the judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Karas, J.), for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and (e). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Thornhill argues that the district court improperly allowed a lay witness to offer expert testimony concerning the identification of the weapon in violation of Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because the defendant did not object in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Edwards, 342 F.3d 168, 179-80 (2d Cir. 2003).

A lay witness, with or without specialized knowledge, may testify to personal observations. See Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701. A witness is not offering opinion testimony unless the “personal perceptions [take the] form of inferences or conclusory opinions.” United States v, Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 211 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, the witness’s testimony was based on his first-hand observations, i.e., that he saw the defendant with what appeared to him to be a “22 long rifle target pistol.” App’x at 191. The witness testified that he recognized the gun based on his previous work as a regiment weapons officer for an army unit in the Jamaica Defense Force. Because this testimony was based on his personal observations informed by his personal life experiences, it was appropriate lay testimony and did not require qualification under Rule 702. See Fed. R. Evid; 701 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment (observing that lay witness could testify that substance appeared to be narcotic based on personal life experience; United States v. Brewer, 36 F.3d 266, 271 (2d Cir. 1994)) (approvingly referencing lay witness describing fire arm as “machine gun”). Accordingly, the defendant’s challenge to the admission of this testimony fails.

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in the defendant’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.