Case involve photo lineup identification of ∆. ∆ introduced testimony of expert regarding the photographic and in-court identification.
Held: Expert testimony regarding eyewitness identification is admissible if the trial court finds that the expert is qualified, the subject of the testimony is proper, expert’s explanatory theory conforms to the generally accepted theory, and the probative value of the testimony outweighs it prejudicial effect.
Expert testimony on a subject is proper if the jury is not qualified without expert testimony to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment form an expert on the subject.
But the court noted that this opinion does not change the general rule against the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.