Can a witness identify a defendant in surveillance footage?

inasmuch as the witness was not qualified as an expert in film reading or interpretation." (People v. Perry (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 (Perry).) Lay opinion is admissible but testimony is limited to an opinion that is (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony. (Evid. Code, 800.) Admission of lay opinion testimony is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion appears. (People v. Mixon (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 118, 127.)

"Court of Appeal decisions have long upheld admission of testimony identifying defendants in surveillance footage or photographs." (People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 601 (Leon).) In Perry, supra, the reviewing court rejected claims that allowing a witness to identify the defendant in surveillance footage was proper and helpful to the jury because the defendant had changed his appearance by shaving his mustache before trial and the officer's opinion was based on his contacts with the defendant and the perception of the film taken of the events. (Perry, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 613.) Questions about the extent of the witness's familiarity with the defendant's appearance went to weight, not admissibility. (Ibid.)