Opinion ID: 2127352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Appellant's argument that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction is premised primarily upon his claim that Mrs. Boone's in-court identification should have been suppressed. Even if that were so, he would only be entitled to a new trial, not a dismissal of the charges. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40, 109 S.Ct. 285, 290, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988); Osborne v. Commonwealth, 43 S.W.3d 234, 245 (Ky.2001). Nevertheless, we have held that Mrs. Boone's eyewitness identification of Appellant as the perpetrator was admissible. Her testimony alone was sufficient to support Appellant's conviction. LaVigne v. Commonwealth, 353 S.W.2d 376, 378-79 (Ky.1962) (robbery conviction supported by uncorroborated testimony of single witness); Adams v. Commonwealth, 560 S.W.2d 825, 826-27 (Ky.App.1977) (same, even though there were seven alibi witnesses for the defense). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed therefor are reversed and this case is remanded to the Montgomery Circuit Court for a new trial in accordance with the content of this opinion. LAMBERT, C.J.; GRAVES, JOHNSTONE, and KELLER, JJ., concur. WINTERSHEIMER, J., dissents by separate opinion, with SCOTT, J., joining that dissenting opinion.