Opinion ID: 1978811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the victim's opportunity to observe her assailant adequate to form the basis for her later identification?

Text: The applicable rule was set forth in State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 313, 170 N. W.2d 543, 552 (1969), as follows: We have said that a verdict may be based on the testimony of a single witness no matter what the issue, Benson v. Northland Transp. Co., 200 Minn. 445, 450, 274 N.W. 532, 534, and that identification testimony need not be positive and certain, but that it is enough for a witness to testify that it is his opinion, belief, impression, or judgment that the defendant is the person he saw commit the crime. State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399, 138 N.W.2d 46. The factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony to which defendant refers  time for observation, circumstances under which the observation was made, etc.  go to the weight to be accorded the testimony, not its admissibility. See, also, State v. Gluff, 285 Minn. 148, 172 N.W.2d 63 (1969). Application of these tests to the facts of this case clearly indicates that the victim's opportunity to observe her assailant was adequate to form a basis for later identification.