The case at issue arises out of a homicide which was captured on a home surveillance system that took place during daylight hours in the City of Trenton. The suspect can be seen on the video walking down the sidewalk seconds before he/she reaches the victim and shoots him in the head, causing his death. The question presented was whether a proposed expert in the field of digital forensics should be permitted to testify and proffer an opinion at trial regarding the estimated height of the individual captured on the surveillance video based upon the application of a technique called reverse projection photogrammetry.
The court held a Rule 104 hearing at which time the State’s proposed expert testified. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the court ruled that the expert’s testimony was admissible pursuant to N.J.R.E702. In that regard: (1) the subject of the testimony was beyond the ken of the average juror and would assist the trier of fact to understand whether the height of the individual depicted in the video was consistent with the defendant’s height; (2) the expert was duly qualified in the field of digital forensics, including reverse projection photogrammetry; and (3) the expert’s testimony and opinions were reliable because they are “based on a sound, adequately-founded scientific methodology involving data and information of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the field.” State v. Olenowski, ___ N.J. ___ (2023)(slip op. at 8).