Opinion ID: 580722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Identification of Sienhausen at Trial

Text: 11 Sienhausen contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions because the record fails to reflect that she is the person described in Rogers' testimony. On direct examination, in describing his meeting with Stone on the afternoon of July 24, 1989 and his initial introduction to Sienhausen, Rogers testified as follows: 12
13 Q. Okay. Did he introduce her to you? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And is she here in the courtroom? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. Would you identify her for the jury? 18 A. She's the lady sitting next to--at the first table next to the defense attorney. She has on a yellow sweater and a green, lime green turtleneck. And she has sort of blondish hair. 19 There is no challenge made here to Rogers' recollection or ability to identify the woman involved in the events of July 24, 1989. The sole basis for Sienhausen's point of error is that, because the prosecutor did not at the end of this exchange expressly request that the trial transcript reflect that Rogers had identified the defendant--which he clearly should have done--there is no way in examining the record on appeal to know whether she was in fact the woman in the lime green turtleneck. 20 We find this challenge, raised for the first time on appeal, creative but unavailing. As the above testimony shows, there can be no doubt that Rogers identified the person whom he was discussing with adequate specificity for the jury and others present in the courtroom. During voir dire Sienhausen was present in court and was personally identified before the entire panel by the Assistant United States Attorney and by her counsel as the defendant Denise Sienhausen, and Sienhausen personally pleaded not guilty in the presence of the jury. Absent some genuine issue as to the identity of the person who committed the offense, we are not inclined to reverse a conviction based on such a technicality in the appellate record.