and concluded that the substance found in defendant’s jacket was cocaine. Ms. Charlesworth did not testify at trial. Defendant did not object to Officer Tucker’s testimony or the admission of Ms. Charlesworth’s re ortunity to cross-examine Ms. Charlesworth. Therefore, admitting the report and permitting Officer Tucker to testify to its contents violated defend-ant’s Confrontation Clause rights. “A violation of the defendant’s rights under the Constitution of the United States is prejudicial unless the appellate court finds that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(b) (2009). Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine wit 53, 158 (2010) (<HOLDING>); State v. Meadows, — N.C. App. —, —, 687
holding that lay opinion testimony of witnesses was helpful and admissible to identify the defendant as the bank robber depicted in a surveillance photo as the witnesses were more familiar with the defendants appearance than the jury holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that lay opinion testimony is not admissible when the jury can readily draw the necessary inferences and conclusions without the aid of the opinion holding that lay opinion based on physical appearance is not enough to identify crackcocaine holding that witnesss opinion of a persons reaction to hearing a statement was admissible lay testimony based on personal observation