Opinion ID: 1834950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the testimony of the out-of-court identification of the defendant constitute an impermissible bolstering of the witness's in-court identification?

Text: Wilson argues that because the lineup violated his right to counsel and entitlement to due process of law, the trial court erred in allowing Manuel to identify Wilson as the assailant before the jury. He further urges that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Crisco to testify regarding Manuel's lineup identification of Wilson. In Fells v. State, 345 So.2d 618, 622 (Miss. 1977), we recognized that a primary witness may testify concerning an out-of-court identification. Fells also held that if the primary witness' testimony is impeached, independent evidence of the out-of-court identification may be introduced by a third person. In this case the third person was Detective Crisco. We have already determined that Wilson was not deprived of counsel nor of his due process rights. Therefore, the evidence of Manuel's out of court identification of Wilson was admissible. Furthermore, once Wilson sought to impeach Manuel's identification, the door was opened for Detective Crisco's testimony concerning the out-of-court identification. In Livingston v. State, 519 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Miss. 1988), we addressed the same issue and said, ... the new Mississippi Rules of Evidence provide that such identification evidence is not hearsay and is admissible as substantive material (See Rule 801(D)(1)(C)). See also, Jimpson, 532 So.2d at 989-90. This assignment of error is without merit.