Court Opinion

ID: 9535454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:49:40.933689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:15.491461
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Judge
(specially concurring).
The majority opinion correctly states the prevailing rule rendering inadmissible the ten year old child’s identification of the defendant at the bridge at the scene of the accident. In my opinion the rule is too restrictive. The boy identified the driver of the vehicle at the bridge but was unable to identify him in the courtroom. The boy was available for cross-examination as to the person to whom the identification was *83related and as to all of the circumstances appropriate to the inquiry which would either corroborate or discredit his knowledge or means of knowledge as to the identity of the person he saw at the bridge. The person to whom the identification was related, in this instance the arresting officer, within the sound discretion of the trial judge concerning the sufficiency of the foundation and the circumstances surrounding the identification by the boy, should then be permitted to testify in the manner reflected by the record and quoted in the majority opinion. In my opinion all of the necessary safeguards would then have been available to the defense. In my opinion these views are consistent with this Court’s opinion in the case of State v. Villalobos, decided this day. I concur in the reversal.