the time of the alleged criminal activity and testified that his appearance at trial differed substantially from the time when the video was taken in that Rossana had since lost about thirty pounds, cut his hair, and was now wearing glasses. Rossana then called a witness (a private investigator) who testified as to the poor quality of the video and the impossibility of identifying anyone from the video. Next, Rossana called a friend of fifty years to testify that he was unable to identify Rossana in the video. On appeal, Rossana argues that permitting the subjective testimony of Momot, Joseph, and Wysocki constituted reversible error, as it is the jury’s exclusive responsibility to determine the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. See Bennett v. State, 794 P.2d 879, 882 (Wyo. 1990) (<HOLDING>). The relevant Nevada rule mirrors Federal Rule
holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion