The trial court granted appellant’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995 to set aside the information charging him with possession of body armor by a felon in violation of section 12370(a) on the ground that opinion evidence offered by a police officer concerning whether the vest was bulletproof was inadmissible, and therefore there was insufficient evidence that the vest was of the kind proscribed by the statute. The prosecutor appealed, contending that the officer’s testimony was proper lay opinion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The officer was not offered as an expert. Whether a vest qualifies as “bulletproof” is a matter which is not within common experience and therefore a proper subject for expert testimony, not a lay opinion.