People v. Fomby
300 Mich. App. 46
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant convicted by jury of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and carjacking; sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder and 19 to 80 years for armed robbery and carjacking.
- Issue on appeal concerns evidence from Sergeant Gibson identifying individuals in photos and video; defendant claims lay testimony invaded jury’s province and was irrelevant.
- Gibson testified as a certified video forensic technician and linked individuals in still photos to those in the surveillance video.
- Trial court admitted Gibson’s testimony; defendant argues it was expert opinion under MRE 702 or irrelevant under MRE 403.
- Court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and concludes Gibson’s testimony was lay opinion under MRE 701 and admissible.
- Court affirms the convictions and notes that Gibson did not identify the defendant, but rather linked individuals across video stills and footage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gibson’s testimony was lay or expert opinion | Gibson’s perception-based testimony aids the jury. | Identification opinions require expert testimony or are impermissible lay speculation. | Admissible as lay opinion (MRE 701). |
| Whether Gibson invaded the jury’s province by identifying individuals | Testimony helps determine if suspects in video matched earlier footage. | Testimony usurps jury function by identifying persons. | Did not invade the jury’s province; admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994) (lay opinion identification from video not expert testimony; extensive video review supports admissibility)
- United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1993) (identification from surveillance photos may be improper if defendant’s identity is for jury to determine)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Adorno, 695 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (witness identification from video/photo not allowed when witness is no better positioned than jurors)
- People v. Bragdon, 142 Mich. App. 197 (1985) (limits on expert vs. lay opinion; cannot express guilt/innocence)