In what circumstances will a jury at trial convict a defendant who was wearing a mask?

In People v. Mohamed (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, the prosecution introduced the testimony and curbside identifications of a robbery victim and an eyewitness to a restaurant robbery. (Id. at pp. 517-518.) The victim said that the defendant wore a mask in a way that left the bottom of his face visible, allowing her to see the shape of his jawline, nose, and mouth. (Id. at pp. 517-518.) During her curbside identification of the suspect, the victim told the police she was "80 percent sure" the defendant was the robber based on his clothing, facial features, and build. (Id. at p. 519.) She also identified the defendant at the preliminary hearing and at trial. (Id. at pp. 519, 521.) The witness at the restaurant based his curbside identification on the defendant's clothes, and despite some doubt, he was confident about his identification. (Id. at p. 519.) Both the victim and the witness missed details about the defendant's outfit and possessions, but their description of the defendant's physical appearance closely matched. (Id. at pp. 518-519, 522.) At trial, defense counsel introduced expert testimony on variables affecting eyewitness identification. (Id. at p. 520.) This court held sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction despite the victim's uncertainty or the fact that neither the victim nor the witness saw the defendant's entire face. (Id. at p. 522.) Additionally, the discrepancies between the witnesses' observations and their omission of certain information from their initial descriptions of the defendant "did not necessitate the jury's

Page 15