Opinion ID: 2173937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: Finally, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon the habitual offender finding. He contends that, with respect to one of the alleged prior felony convictions, the State did not prove that he was the person named in the documentary evidence of the conviction. At trial, Defendant's former attorney, who had represented him in the aforementioned prior proceeding, testified as follows: Q. Your cause number  the Huntington County case was designated State vs Burl Gene Poe. Is that the same as Burl Poe who is here today? A. As far as I know. R. at 277-78. Defendant correctly notes that this is the only evidence linking him to the Burl Gene Poe named in the documentary evidence; however, he is in error in asserting that the jury could not infer from this evidence that he and the Burl Gene Poe named in the documentary evidence are one in the same. A witness may testify upon the issue of the identification of the accused in the form of an opinion or belief, and such testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to support a finding upon the issue of identification of the accused. Medsker v. State, (1946) 224 Ind. 587, 590, 70 N.E.2d 182, 183. Defendant's argument is without merit. We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.