the screenshots. Edmonson objected, arguing that the testimony
did not satisfy the requirements of I.R.E. 701(b). The district court overruled the objection.
After the objection was overruled, the officer testified that Edmonson was the person in the


                                                2
screenshots. After the first officer testified, two other officers testified, without objection, that
Edmonson was the individual in the screenshots. Those officers testified that they had known
Edmonson for seventeen and eighteen years, respectively, and both identified Edmonson from
the screenshots. While Edmonson introduced photographs of her sister toimply that her sister
could have been the individual in the screenshots, the second and third officers who identified
Edmonson also knew Edmonson’s sister and testified that her sister was not the individual in the
screenshots. Moreover, although Edmonson introduced photographs of her sister, Edmonson
never identified the person in the screenshots as her sister. Finally, Edmonson admitted that she
was present in the daycare on the night of the burglary, claiming she was only there to assist a
friend who had worked at the daycare and “popped the lock” to retrieve milk and creamer from
the daycare. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that the first officer’s testimony
identifying Edmonson as the person in the screenshots did not contribute to the jury verdict.
Thus, any error was harmless.
       