5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Larkinsgreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 601 [rejecting challenge to lay opinion testimony identifying person on a security video as the defendant in part “because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant”]; People v. Larkins (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 [“the jurors were able to test the manager’s opinion that defendant was the person in the 20 to 30 videos because they saw still 9 photos taken from some of the videos and they could test his ability to correctly identify defendant in the three vide 2025(See, e.g., People v. Larkins (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1067, 1068 (Larkins) [finding no error in admitting a non-police witness’s identification testimony where his foundation was based on viewing two photos that 12 undisputedly depicted the defendant; the identification was based on the witness viewing 20 or 30 videos of the suspect, which, unlike the still photos in Perry and Mixon, allowed the witness to “observe such distinguishing characteristics as [the] defendant’s posture, gait and body movements”; and “jurors were able to test the [witness’s] opinion . . . because they saw still p | 3 | 4 |
People v. Leongreen1 sentence2026(See People v. Leon (2015) 61 Cal.4th 569, 601 [rejecting challenge to lay opinion testimony identifying person on a security video as the defendant in part “because the surveillance video was played for the jury, jurors could make up their own minds about whether the person shown was defendant”]; People v. Larkins (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 [“the jurors were able to test the manager’s opinion that defendant was the person in the 20 to 30 videos because they saw still 9 photos taken from some of the videos and they could test his ability to correctly identify defendant in the three vide | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pelayo
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Mendoza (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 ; People v. Pelayo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 115, 122 .) Here, the videos defense counsel wanted to show the jury were factually dissimilar to the circumstances surrounding appellant’s alleged gun use. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Mendoza (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 717, 725 ; People v. Pelayo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 115, 122 .) Here, the videos defense counsel wanted to show the jury were factually dissimilar to the circumstances surrounding appellant’s alleged gun use. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.