Court Opinion

ID: 9681653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:53:52.790592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.903881
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion in all respects except its disposition of the issue as to the lineup, and with respect to that question, I concur in the result reached.
The appellant cites and relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178. However, those cases are not retrospective in application. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. Wade and Gilbert were decided June 12, 1967. The lineup in this case was held on February 3, 1967. Consequently, Wade and Gilbert are inapplicable and I would rule the case on that basis.
Under such circumstances, the question is whether the lineup in this case “was so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification that he was denied due process of law.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, 388 U.S. l. c. 301, 87 S.Ct. l. c. 1972; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402. I agree that the ⅛-court identification by prosecu-trix had an independent source and I am of the view that the lineup in this case was not “so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification” as to deny defendant herein due process of law.