State v. PattersonÂ, 249 N.C. App. 659

Background

On January 27, 2014 and subsequent dates, Wesley Patterson was indicted for felonious larceny, felonious breaking and entering, felonious possession of stolen goods, habitual larceny (elevating prior misdemeanor larcenies), and attaining habitual felon status.
Victim David Hay discovered his MacBook Air and iPad missing from his office; Hay tracked the iPad to a nearby strip mall/light rail station where he saw a man carrying a computer bag and identified Patterson.
Brian Gillespie, a coworker, had earlier seen a man exit Hay’s office and later identified Patterson in a show-up at the light rail station.
Police detained Patterson on a bench with the computer bag; surveillance video and still images from the train/platform and office building were admitted at trial.
Detective Tammy Post testified, identifying Patterson in multiple surveillance videos and a still photo and stating Patterson was holding the computer bag; some objections were made but much of her identification testimony was admitted or not objected to.
Jury convicted Patterson of breaking and entering and related offenses; he pled to habitual felon status and received a consolidated sentence. Patterson appealed, arguing Detective Post’s identification testimony was improper lay opinion testimony and prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay identification testimony by Detective Post from light rail surveillance video	State: Post’s testimony was based on her perception and familiarity and helpful to the jury	Patterson: Post was no better positioned than the jury; her identifications were inadmissible lay opinion that invaded the jury’s role	Court: Mostly upheld admission — defendant waived many objections; even if error, not prejudicial given other evidence
Testimony that Patterson was holding the computer bag in surveillance footage	State: Observations from video were within Post’s perceptions and aided factfinding	Patterson: Testimony was lay opinion and improperly bolstered weak ID evidence	Court: Initial objection was overruled and later identical testimony admitted without objection; any error was not prejudicial
Identification of Patterson in still photograph from office building	State: Post could identify based on familiarity and the photo aided the jury	Patterson: General objections preserved the issue; testimony was improperly admitted lay opinion	Court: Preservation was a close call; but even if error, no prejudice given independent ID evidence (Gillespie, Hay, circumstances)
Whether suggestive show-up identification (Gillespie) rendered IDs unreliable	State: Show-up did not create substantial likelihood of misidentification under totality of circumstances	Patterson: Show-up was inherently suggestive and unreliable	Court: Show-up was suggestive but not so unreliable — Gillespie had a good opportunity to view, gave description, was certain, and ID occurred shortly after observation; totality supported reliability

Key Cases Cited

State v. Belk, 201 N.C. App. 412 (2009) (factors for admissibility of officer lay ID from surveillance and when such testimony may invade jury province)
State v. Buie, 194 N.C. App. 725 (2009) (lay opinion identification from photographs/videos evaluated for helpfulness vs. prejudice)
State v. Fulton, 299 N.C. 491 (1980) (general rule that non-expert opinion evidence is ordinarily inadmissible when it invades jury function)
State v. Turner, 305 N.C. 356 (1982) (show-up identifications are not per se unconstitutional; reliability assessed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Rawls, 207 N.C. App. 415 (2010) (two-step test for suggestive identification procedures and totality-of-circumstances reliability factors)