Opinion ID: 1110457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: In-court Identification Testimony.

Text: Defendant reserved these two bills when the trial judge allowed Joseph Fazzio, a clerk in the drugstore, to testify that the accused resembled the person who robbed the drugstore, although he could not be a hundred percent accurate because the robber was wearing a big straw hat and sunglasses. The defense objection was that testimony short of positive identification is inadmissible. Defense counsel now concedes, however, that the bill of exceptions lacks substance under our recent decision in State v. Franklin, 255 La. 830, 233 So.2d 532 (1970), where we held: We find no merit in the bill. The jury was made well aware that the witness was not making a positive identification of the accused as one of the persons seen by him, but only that he fit the general description of such persons. It was, we think relevant circumstantial evidence, and that the objection goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony. It differs little, if any, from testimony as to the color or kind of apparel worn by a person at the scene of the crime when that is material, although circumstantial only.