People v. Thompson, 49 N.E.3d 393

Background

Jeremy Thompson was indicted for procurement and tampering with anhydrous ammonia used to make methamphetamine after surveillance video/stills from a farm supply showed a man stealing from tanks.
Police circulated a still image; four witnesses (two Mt. Vernon officers, a Hamilton County deputy, and a civilian acquaintance, Jessica Joslin) identified Thompson from the video or stills at trial.
At an interview, Chief Deputy Sandusky showed Thompson a still; Thompson initially said the photo depicted him and admitted to manufacturing methamphetamine and stealing ammonia on multiple occasions, later making an inconsistent recantation.
Defense raised a motion in limine arguing lay opinion identification testimony would invade the jury’s province; the trial court admitted the identifications under Ill. R. Evid. 701 and the jury convicted.
The appellate court reversed, applying People v. Starks and concluding the lay identifications improperly usurped the jury’s role; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and reviewed admissibility under Rule 701.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lay opinion identification testimony is admissible under Ill. R. Evid. 701	Rule 701 allows such testimony if based on perception and helpful to determining identity; circuit court properly admitted the witnesses’ identifications	Testimony invaded the jury’s fact-finding and was improper under Starks; law‑enforcement ID testimony is especially prejudicial	Lay opinion ID admissible under Rule 701 when rationally based on perception and helpful; court adopts a totality‑of‑circumstances test and rejects Starks’ restrictive two‑part rule
Standard/factors for assessing helpfulness of lay ID testimony	Admission is appropriate when a witness is more likely than the jury to correctly ID defendant	Admission should be limited (e.g., to changed appearance or unclear recording) to avoid usurping jury	Court lists factors (familiarity, contemporaneous familiarity/dress, disguise/appearance change, clarity of recording) and says absence of any single factor is not dispositive
Whether law‑enforcement witness ID testimony should be categorically barred	State: no per se bar; officers may testify subject to safeguards	Thompson: law‑enforcement IDs are unduly prejudicial and impede effective cross‑examination (Calhoun)	No per se bar; when prosecutors seek to introduce officer lay IDs, court should allow defendant to examine officer outside jury presence and give limiting instructions to mitigate prejudice
Whether admission of the identifications in this case was reversible error	State: some identifications were admissible; even errors were harmless because Thompson made incriminating admissions and jury viewed video	Defendant: admission of officers’ IDs deprived jury of independent assessment; error was prejudicial	Court holds Stewart and Joslin’s testimony admissible; Sandusky, Jackson, and Huff should have been subject to precautionary procedures and their admission was error but that error was harmless in light of Thompson’s admissions and other circumstances

Key Cases Cited

People v. Starks, 119 Ill. App. 3d 21 (Ill. App. Ct.) (older Illinois test limiting lay ID testimony)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (Confrontation clause limits arise when cross‑examination is prohibited)
United States v. White, 639 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (lay opinion ID admissible when witness likelier than jury to ID defendant)
United States v. Beck, 418 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.) (Rule 701 analysis and helpfulness requirement)
United States v. Jackman, 48 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (admission of lay ID where photos were incomplete/blurry)
United States v. Allen, 787 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.) (procedural safeguards for officer ID testimony)
United States v. Calhoun, 544 F.2d 291 (6th Cir.) (argued for categorical exclusion of parole/officer IDs)
United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 540 (6th Cir.) (factors for assessing helpfulness of lay ID)