Lay witness may give shoe-print comparison evidence. At appellant’s trial for attempted burglary, a non-expert police officer was allowed to testify that shoeprints found in the dirt at the scene of the offense were similar to the soles of the defendant’s shoes. The appellate court here found that the evidence was properly admitted, and affirmed appellant’s conviction. The officer’s comparison of shoes and footprints was based on his perception as a nonexpert rather than an expert witness. The officer did not testify that the footprints matched, but merely that they were “similar,” which was well within the competence of a lay witness.