Opinion ID: 2812643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lay Opinion Identification

Text: Defendant claims the trial court erred when it allowed a detective to identify him as the person shown on the surveillance videos of two robberies. Such a ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Mixon (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 118, 127.) The claim fails. During the testimony of Detective Michael Oppelt, the prosecutor played a portion of the surveillance tape from the Valley Market robbery. As the video played, she asked Oppelt whether he recognized the jacket worn by a person who entered the store. Defendant objected that any identification by the detective would be an inadmissible lay opinion. The court allowed the testimony subject to the laying of sufficient foundation that Oppelt had contact with defendant. Oppelt testified that he was ―very‖ familiar with defendant‘s appearance. He first saw defendant when he was arrested. He subsequently saw defendant nearly 10 times and spent about two hours with him. Oppelt was also familiar with the jacket defendant wore when arrested. Like the jacket shown in the video, defendant‘s jacket had colored panels on the sleeves and front pockets with silver 11 The jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 2.50 (1994 rev.) (5th ed. 1988) as follows: ―Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant committed a crime other than that for which he is on trial. [¶] Such evidence, if believed, was not received and may not be considered by you to prove that defendant is a person of bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crimes. Such evidence was received and may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show: [¶] A characteristic method, plan or scheme in the commission of criminal acts similar to the method, plan or scheme used in the commission of the offense in this case which would further tend to show the existence of the intent which is a necessary element of the crime charged. [¶] The defendant had knowledge or possessed the means that might have been useful or necessary for the commission of the crime charged. [¶] For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. [¶] You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose.‖ 32 hasps. In Oppelt‘s opinion, the person shown in the Valley Market surveillance video was defendant, in the same jacket he was wearing when arrested the next day. Oppelt also testified about the surveillance video from the Sun Valley Shell station murder. He said that the car in the video looked like the car defendant crashed when fleeing from police. The body color, wood paneling, luggage rack, and appearance of the front license plate were all similar. Oppelt also testified that the jacket and Raiders baseball cap worn by a person in the video looked similar to the jacket defendant wore and the cap found in his car. A lay witness may offer opinion testimony if it is rationally based on the witness‘s perception and helpful to a clear understanding of the witness‘s testimony. (Evid. Code, § 800.) ―[T]he identity of a person is a proper subject of nonexpert opinion . . . .‖ (People v. Perry (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 (Perry); accord, People v. Mixon, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d at p. 127 (Mixon).) Court of Appeal decisions have long upheld admission of testimony identifying defendants in surveillance footage or photographs. In Perry, the defendant argued an identification had to be based on the officer‘s perception of a crime. (Perry, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 613.) The court disagreed, finding it proper for officers to predicate their opinion on ―contacts with defendant, their awareness of his physical characteristics on the day of the robbery, and their perception of the film taken of the events.‖ (Ibid.) The testimony was also helpful because the defendant had changed his appearance by shaving his mustache before trial. (Ibid.) Similarly, the court in Mixon, upheld identification of the defendant in a robbery surveillance photograph by officers who had numerous contacts with him and were unequivocal in their identification. (Mixon, supra, 129 Cal.App.3d at pp. 130-131; see also People v. Ingle (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 505, 515 [allowing similar testimony by robbery victim based on her observation of defendant during the crime].) 33 Defendant distinguishes these cases because Oppelt did not have contact with him before the crimes. (See People v. Ingle, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 513.) This is a distinction without a difference. It is undisputed Oppelt was familiar with defendant‘s appearance around the time of the crimes. Their contact began when defendant was arrested, one day after the Valley Market robbery. Questions about the extent of Oppelt‘s familiarity with defendant‘s appearance went to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. (Perry, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 613.) Other eyewitness testimony indicated defendant had changed his appearance after the crimes. Witnesses who identified defendant in lineups held many months after the crimes noted that defendant was heavier, had shorter hair, and no longer wore a mustache. Moreover, because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant. Because Oppelt‘s testimony was based on his relevant personal knowledge and aided the jury, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.