Opinion ID: 1057780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Identification Instruction

Text: The Defendant argues that the trial court did not adequately instruct the jury in regard to identification testimony. He specifically complains that the written identity charge given to the jury is different than the verbal identity charge. In State v. Dyle, we acknowledged the fallibility of eyewitness testimony and identified a variety of factors worthy of consideration, including (1) the capacity of the witness and the opportunity to observe; (2) the degree of certainty by the witness; (3) any failure on the part of the witness to make the identification; and (4) any occasions when the witness made identifications consistent with that at trial or the surrounding circumstances. 899 S.W.2d 607, 612 (Tenn. 1995). This language is set out in the pattern jury instructions. Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions, (Crim.) 42.05 (10th ed.2006). The record here shows that the written instructions, which are submitted to the jury, [13] are in strict compliance with Dyle: Again, the state has the burden of proving every element of the crime charged, and this burden specifically includes the identity of the defendant. . . . (emphasis added). According to the transcript documents, however, the trial judge omitted the words specifically includes in his verbal charge and instead stated as follows: Again, the state has the burden of proving every element of the crime charged including the identity of the defendant. . . . In our view, these instructions vary only slightly in content. Although the language we used in Dyle, as provided on the written charge, is preferable, the difference is insubstantial. See Dyle. 899 S.W.2d at 612. This issue is, therefore, without merit.