A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GIVE HIS OPINION ABOUT WHAT WAS DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a police officer should not have been allowed to offer an opinion about what was depicted in surveillance videos:

Supreme Court should have precluded the testimony of a police detective regarding his opinion as to what was depicted on various surveillance videos. “It is, of course, the role of the jury to determine the facts of the case tried before it” … . “Generally, lay witnesses must testify only to the facts and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts, as it is the jury’s province to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts” … . Here, considerable portions of the detective’s testimony improperly usurped the jury’s function by interpreting the evidence and was improperly admitted into evidence as relevant to the detective’s investigation … . Rather than aiding the jury in understanding the investigation, the detective improperly narrated the video, and the detective’s interpretation of the video improperly “instruct[ed] the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense” … . The error cannot be deemed harmless since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the error, was not overwhelming, and it cannot be said that there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error … . People v Vincent, 2026 NY Slip Op 06149, Second Dept 10-21-26

Practice Point: Here, allowing a police officer to give his opinion about what was depicted in surveillance videos usurped the jury’s function.