Court Opinion

ID: 9530385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:25.995018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.852388
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: Identification was made by the complaining witness in a dual aspect, in the sense that her visual observations were confirmed by the recognition of defendant’s voice. The record shows ample opportunity to observe the defendant in each aspect. The record suggests that the complaining witness exercised care and caution in completing her identification of the defendant. We need not conclude that such record demonstrates uncertainty in the identification. The jurors who observed the witness can better conclude whether the identification was clear and convincing than we can from the written record. Apart from the “log” of an assignment at 11:35 p.m., there is no evidence supporting an alibi until the testimony of the defendant’s sister concerning his arrival at her home. Again, the jurors are better able to judge the credibility of the defendant than we are. I would affirm the judgment as the determination of the issues of fact by the jury.