State v. Finan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether defendant was one of two perpetrators of robbery shown on surveillance videotape was ultimate issue of fact in defendant's trial and to admit lay opinion testimony that defendant was shown on videotape was error
• stating that it had been improper to admit the testimony of several police officers purporting to identify the defendant in a surveillance video based on the officers’ “suspicion” that a man appearing in the video was the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).