Identifying a Person Shown in a Surveillance Video

Sometimes the crime is caught on video. When this happens, can an officer identify the perpetrator as the defendant? This issue came up in State v. Weldon, a recent court of appeals case. Let’s go through the rules. This is an issue of admissibility of a lay opinion, under Evidence Rule 701. Our courts allow lay opinion testimony identifying a person in a videotape when it is based on the witness’s perceptions and knowledge and is helpful to the jury. See, e.g., State v. Belk, 201 N.C. App. 412, 415 (2009). Such opinion testimony is inadmissible when it invades the province of the jury as the fact-finder. Id. Factors relevant to the analysis include: the witness’s general level of familiarity with the defendant’s appearance; the witness’s familiarity with the defendant’s appearance at the time of the video; whether the defendant had disguised his or her appearance at the time of the offense; and whether the defendant had changed his or her appearance prior to trial. Id. Also relevant is the quality of the video and the completeness of the image. Id. at 416. Thus, lay opinion identification testimony is more likely to be admissible when the video is of poor quality, or where it shows only a partial view of the person. Id. Let’s look at two illustrative cases. First is Belk, 201 N.C. App. at 417–18, ordering a new trial where an officer was allowed to identify a person depicted in a videotape as the defendant on the basis of [...]