Opinion ID: 2385313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extrajudicial Identification.

Text: It was proper to permit the witness, who had on a previous occasion identified a photograph of the defendant, to subsequently testify in court as to such previous identification. The authorities are by no means in agreement as to the propriety of permitting evidence of extrajudicial identification in a trial where the identity of the accused is an issue. Formerly the general rule was that such testimony was inadmissible as hearsay. The courts are still divided on the question, but, in recent years, the rule had been extensively relaxed. Now testimony as to extrajudicial identification is admissible in many jurisdictions both as substantive and corroborative evidence. See 20 Am. Jur. Evidence § 353; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 725; 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (11th ed. 1935) § 439; Note entitled Criminal Law-Evidence-Testimony of Extrajudicial Identification, 36 Minn. L. Rev. 530 (1952). See also Note, 27 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 367 (1952). By statutory enactment in some jurisdictions, testimony of a previous identification constitutes substantive proof of identification. See People v. Spinello, 303 N.Y. 193, 101 N.E.2d 457 (1951); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed. 1955) § 181. In this State, the modification of the strict general rule is evident. In Blake v. State, 157 Md. 75, 145 A. 185 (1929), we adhered to the former rule that evidence of an extrajudicial identification was hearsay. In that case the victim of a rape who had identified a photograph of the accused out of his presence had also identified him in his presence. A majority of the Court took the view that the testimony of a police officer concerning the statement made by the prosecutrix when she saw the accused at the police station was a reproduction of statements as proof of the facts asserted [by her], and should have been excluded as hearsay testimony. Judge Parke, in a dissenting opinion, [1] would have allowed the testimony to stand because as he stated (at p. 85) the best evidence of identification is usually the first identification. Chief Judge Bond, who wrote the majority opinion, concurred with Judge Parke on this point because he believed that the testimony of the officer should have been regarded as a reply to the attack on the ability of the prosecutrix to identify the accused with certainty rather than as hearsay. After the lapse of approximately thirty years, this Court, by its decision in Basoff v. State, 208 Md. 643, 119 A.2d 917 (1956), substantially modified its former rule as to extrajudicial identification when we declared (at p. 650) in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Delaplaine: [W]e accept the rule that where it appears that the prosecuting witness had identified the accused prior to the trial under circumstances precluding suspicion of unfairness or unreliability, the prior identification is admissible in evidence. From what we said in the Basoff case it is clear we now recognize that an extrajudicial identification of the accused made under proper circumstances may be admitted in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, and, if admitted, would constitute corroborative evidence. The reason for the holding as stated in the Basoff case, at p. 651, is: [I]t is evident that an identification of an accused made by a witness for the first time in the courtroom may often be of little testimonial force, as the witness may have had opportunities to see the accused and to have heard him referred to by a certain name; whereas a prior identification, considered in connection with the circumstances surrounding its making, serves to aid the court in determining the trustworthiness of the identification made in the courtroom. See also State v. Frost, 105 Conn. 326, 135 A. 446 (1926); 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 1130. Since it is clear that the testimony of a police officer in a criminal case to the effect that another witness identified a photograph as that of the accused is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule [ Basoff v. State, supra ], we see no reason why a witness, even though he be an accomplice, who had on a previous occasion identified a photograph of the defendant, should not testify in court as to such extrajudicial identification. It should be admitted for the purpose of corroborating the witness and bolstering his credibility, if for no other purpose. Indeed, we are of the opinion that the mere relation by a witness of a previous act of identifying a photograph of a person he knew or recognized is not hearsay, that it is admissible as substantive evidence, and that it is not subject to the preliminary inquiry as to unreliability or unfairness. Evidence is hearsay only when it derives its value, not solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but in part from the veracity and competency of another person. 20 Am. Jur. Evidence § 451. However, if the witness is an accomplice, and the identity of the accused is an issue, it would be necessary to corroborate such identification as one of the material points of the accomplice's testimony requiring corroboration. In the instant case there was corroboration of the identity of the defendant by the victim. What Professor Morgan said in his article on Hearsay Dangers, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 177 (1948), at p. 192, is peculiarly pertinent to the question now before us. When the Declarant is also a witness, it is difficult to justify classifying as hearsay evidence of his own prior statements.    The courts declare the prior statement to be hearsay because it was not made under oath, subject to the penalty for perjury or to the test of cross-examination. To which the answer might well be: `The declarant as a witness is now under oath and now purports to remember and narrate accurately. The adversary can now expose every element that may carry a danger of misleading the trier of fact both in the previous statement and in the present testimony, and the trier can judge whether both the previous declaration and the present testimony are reliable in whole or in part.' In Williams v. State, 152 Ga. 498, 110 S.E. 286 (1922), an accomplice testified as to the identification of the dead bodies of certain persons whom the defendant was charged with killing. He further testified that he had previously identified the corpses for the sheriff. There was an objection on the ground that such declaration was hearsay and irrelevant, but it was held that such testimony was properly admitted for the reason that an extrajudicial identification is incompetent only when testified to by another than the witness who made the identification. See also People v. Sieber, 201 Cal. 341, 257 P. 64 (1927), [witness permitted to testify concerning previous identification of accused whom he had seen near scene of homicide]. Cf. Thomas v. State, 186 Md. 446, 47 A.2d 43 (1946), in which we held that where a witness has made a written confession that he committed the crime with which the defendant is charged, the defendant has a right to question the witness in regard to the confession and the circumstances under which it was made. We hold that the testimony of the accomplice that he had previously identified a photograph of the defendant was admissible. The weight which should be given to such evidence, if any, was for the jury to decide.