Opinion ID: 2081607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of the Victim

Text: Defendant moved to suppress the testimony of the victim and his identification of the defendant on the grounds of undue influence of state officers. After a hearing the motions were overruled and the victim's testimony and identification of the defendant were admitted into evidence over objection. It was alleged that after the victim identified a look-alike of the defendant, Phillip Wolfe, certain police officers and prosecutors made comments to the victim to the effect that he had identified the wrong man, and that the defendant had gotten away with other crimes. The police and prosecutor denied this allegation at the hearing and the victim was uncertain. There was also evidence that the victim was the first to believe that his identification of Wolfe was incorrect. The defendant does not seek review of this testimony under the standards for pre-trial suggestivity. Rather, he cites no cases in support of his proposition and relies generally on constitutional provisions providing for due process of law, due course of law and the confrontation of witnesses. These provisions were not violated here. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what was said and by whom. In a subsequent pre-trial lineup the victim identified the defendant and not Wolfe. He stated that the basis for his identification was not what someone had told him, but rather what happened to him. There is no definitive proof that the state officers coerced the victim's testimony. Additionally, pre-trial identifications pointed to the defendant. There was no error in admitting the victim's testimony and identification.