Court Opinion

ID: 9671037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:29:57.288691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:07.828343
License: Public Domain

E. C. Penzien, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached but write separately in regard to the issue of identity. Defense counsel argues that the proof of defendant’s identity was so tenuous that the trial court’s error in admitting evidence that defendant had been robbed of $80,000 worth of heroin could never be considered harmless. I disagree on three grounds.
First, it is not at all unusual to find people who are unable to describe accurately even those people who are very close to them. Secondly, the verbal description was given by the victim at a time when he was highly traumatized emotionally. His life had been threatened and he was left tied up in a back room. Thirdly, the victim had no *441need, as he saw it, to be accurate about his verbal description since he told the officer that he knew the defendant well although he did not know defendant’s name, but that the officer could find out the name by contacting Shandra Gilliard.
Accordingly, I find the error as to admission of evidence on the $80,000 worth of heroin harmless beyond any reasonable doubt and agree that defendant’s conviction should be affirmed.