At trial, during voir dire outside the jury's presence, Lieutenant Boyd stated that the images on the tape had not been altered and were in the same condition as when she had first viewed them on the day of the robbery. Because Lieutenant Boyd viewed the tape on both the day of the robbery and at trial and testified that it was in the same condition and had not been edited, there is little or no doubt as to the videotape's authenticity. When taken as a whole, the testimony of Boyd, Harrell, and Jenkins satisfy the test enunciated in Cannon . We therefore hold that the trial court committed no error. The second issue raised by defendant is whether testimony by a police officer comparing shoes on the videotape to the defendant's actual shoes requires qualification of the witness as an expert.
Defendant argues such a comparison requires expert testimony.
N.C. Gen. Stat. In State v. Shaw , our Supreme Court found no error where a police officer testified that the wear pattern and size of shoes found at a crime scene and those worn by the defendant were similar. Such a determination may be made by merely observing each pair. We find no error in the decision of the trial court. Defendant's motion was based on his contention that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove that the victims' lives were in fact endangered or threatened, an element necessary to prove the crime of armed robbery.