State v. Gabriel, 151 Haw. 130

Defendant Bradley Gabriel was tried for first-degree burglary based on Nov. 27, 2018 home-surveillance video and a still-frame photo.
Two HPD officers (Soto and Maekawa) identified Gabriel in the footage and photo; the State admitted their testimony as lay-opinion identification under HRE Rule 701.
Gabriel moved in limine to exclude police identification testimony as invading the jury's fact-finding role; the State moved to admit it and sought a Rule 104 hearing.
Following an HRE Rule 104 hearing, the circuit court admitted the officers' lay identifications after finding sufficient familiarity and that the video was obscured (not merely grainy); the court also performed an HRE Rule 403 balancing and imposed limiting instructions about prior contacts.
The jury convicted Gabriel; he appealed arguing (1) improper admission of officers' lay ID testimony under HRE 701, (2) abuse of discretion under HRE 403, and (3) failure to give an eyewitness-identification instruction.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, finding (1) the officers’ lay opinions were admissible under HRE 701 given totality of circumstances, (2) the Rule 403 balance was not abused, and (3) no error in not sua sponte giving an eyewitness-identification instruction (defendant did not request one and the officers were not eyewitnesses).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of police lay-opinion ID under HRE 701	FRE/HRE 701 permits lay-opinion ID; officers had sufficient familiarity and video was obscured so their ID was helpful	Officers lacked substantial familiarity; video quality allowed jury to decide identity; testimony usurped jury role	Admission upheld: totality-of-circumstances (familiarity, mannerisms, temporal proximity, obscured video) made officers' lay IDs helpful and admissible under HRE 701
HRE Rule 403 balancing (prejudice vs. probative value)	Probative value outweighed any unfair prejudice; limiting instructions and scope of testimony mitigate prejudice	Officer status and prior contacts create unfair prejudice and undue weight with jury	No abuse of discretion: court limited testimony to "interactions," gave cautionary instructions, and found two officers not cumulative or unduly prejudicial
Failure to give eyewitness-identification jury instruction	Not required sua sponte; defendant did not request instruction and identifications were not eyewitness testimony to the crime	A specific eyewitness-identification instruction was warranted because ID was central to case	No plain error: defendant did not request the instruction; officers were not eyewitnesses and court gave limiting/credibility instructions sufficient under the circumstances

Ching v. Dung, 148 Haw. 416, 477 P.3d 856 (Haw. 2020) (standards of review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1993) (police lay-identification testimony disallowed where officer lacked firsthand familiarity)
United States v. Henderson, 68 F.3d 323 (9th Cir. 1995) (requirement of sufficient contact to render lay opinion helpful)
United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) (police identification evidence and Rule 403 analysis)
People v. Thompson, 49 N.E.3d 393 (Ill. 2016) (totality-of-circumstances factors for admitting lay ID testimony)
United States v. Farnsworth, 729 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1984) (admissibility of witness opinion identifying person in surveillance photo)
State v. Cabagbag, 127 Haw. 302, 277 P.3d 1027 (Haw. 2012) (eyewitness-identification instruction required when requested and ID is central)