Opinion ID: 2373337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: identity of appellant

Text: Womack asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict based upon the State's failure to identify him at trial. We disagree. [A]n element to be proved in every case is that the person who stands before the court in the position of the defendant is the one whom the indictment or information accuses and to whom the evidence is supposed to relate. Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296, 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988). Identification of a defendant can be inferred from all the facts and circumstances that are in evidence. Becker v. State, 298 Ark. 438, 768 S.W.2d 527 (1989). In Becker , we held that there was sufficient proof of identity, stating: Here, there were no codefendants; the defendant was tried alone. He was specifically identified as Mr. Becker and the defendant throughout the trial. The witnesses were eyewitnesses to the robbery, and the fact that none of them pointed out that the wrong man had been brought to trial was eloquent and sufficient proof of identity. In the case at bar, Tokie testified that Womack was the person from whom he purchased marijuana and cocaine. Womack was tried alone and was identified as Mr. Womack or Thomas Womack throughout the trial. Furthermore, Tokie was a participant in the drug buys and did not point out that the wrong man had been brought to trial. In sum, this was sufficient proof of identity.