Opinion ID: 2058264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Habitual Offender Identification

Text: To prove Lee's identity as the individual convicted of forgery in 1977 and 1980, the State presented the testimony of Evansville Police Officer Kenneth Macken. Macken was the charging officer in both of these prior convictions. He identified Lee in court as the person charged with both crimes. Macken indicated that his identification was based, at least in part, on a 1977 photograph of Lee which he had seen prior to his testimony. This photograph was not produced or offered. Lee moved to strike Macken's identification testimony because it was opinion evidence and because it was hearsay. On appeal, Lee argues that the best source of identification evidence was the photograph seen by Macken and not Macken's opinion that the individual pictured in the photograph was Lee. He asserts that the photograph should have been produced and offered into evidence. This argument assumes that Macken's identification was based solely on the earlier photograph. Viewed most favorably to the judgment, however, the record reveals that Macken was the investigating officer in 1977, personally saw Lee then, remembered him from that time, and identified him in court as the person charged with forgery. Macken had an independent basis for the identification. Any discrepancy in this identification goes to its weight, not its admissibility. The credibility of Macken's identification was for the jury to determine. Barger v. State (1984), Ind., 466 N.E.2d 725. Moreover, while either a photograph of the person convicted of an underlying offense, Bray v. State (1982), Ind., 443 N.E.2d 310, or identification by someone with personal knowledge, Craig v. State (1985), Ind., 484 N.E.2d 566, may be sufficient to identify appellant, neither method of proof is preferred to the exclusion of the other. Identification based on a witness' personal knowledge cannot be excluded on an objection that a photograph is the best evidence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.