## Facts

- Vardan Kagramany was charged by the State of Hawaiʻi in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit.
- The case went to trial and a central disputed point was the identity of the person shown in hotel security-camera imagery.
- The prosecution offered into evidence four still photographs taken from hotel security-video footage.
- The prosecution contended the photographs depicted Kagramany.
- The prosecution called Detective Meyer as a witness.
- Over Kagramany’s objection, Detective Meyer testified that Kagramany was the person shown in the photographs.
- The jury convicted Kagramany.
- Kagramany appealed, arguing that the circuit court should not have allowed the detective’s identification testimony as lay opinion because the jury could view the photographs itself and decide whether the person shown was Kagramany.

## Issues

1. Did the circuit court err under Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rule 701 by admitting Detective Meyer’s lay opinion identifying Kagramany as the person depicted in the hotel surveillance still photographs, where Kagramany argued the testimony was not helpful to the jury?

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals concluded the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Detective Meyer’s identification testimony as lay opinion under HRE Rule 701.
- The ICA affirmed the judgment(s) of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRE Rule 701, a lay witness’s opinion testimony is admissible if it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony or to deciding a fact in dispute.
- Identification of a person in a photograph or video may be admitted as lay opinion when the witness is in a better position than the jurors to make the identification based on what the witness has perceived (for example, prior familiarity with the person, or other case-specific reasons showing the opinion will assist the jury rather than simply repeat what jurors can decide equally well).
- The trial court has discretion to determine whether lay identification testimony will assist the jury, including evaluating the quality of the images and the foundation showing the witness’s ability to recognize the person depicted.
- Concerns that an identification opinion invades the jury’s role generally go to the weight of the testimony when the witness has an adequate basis to identify the person; those concerns can be tested through cross-examination and contrary evidence.
- Appellate review of a ruling admitting or excluding evidence under HRE Rule 701 is for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Kagramany*, the Hawaiʻi Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed Kagramany’s conviction after holding that the circuit court acted within its discretion under HRE Rule 701 when it allowed Detective Meyer to give lay opinion testimony identifying Kagramany as the person shown in four still photographs taken from hotel security footage, rejecting Kagramany’s claim that the identification opinion was not helpful to the jury.


State v. Kagramany, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 431 (2015)