Court Opinion

ID: 9519321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:14:06.538034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:17.444069
License: Public Domain

Pivarnik, J.
Appellant Harris was convicted of rape at the conclusion of a jury trial in Marion Criminal Court on June 21, 1976, and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Three issues are presented for our review: (1) whether an in-court identification of appellant by the victim was proper, in light of pre-trial identification procedures; (2) whether the *13court properly admitted testimony by the victim relating to a pre-trial voice identification of appellant on tape, and; (3) whether the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
I.
The facts relevant to the allegedly tainted in-court identification of appellant by the victim are as follows. The victim testified that she was called to come down to the police station, and informed by a detective that they wanted her to “look at someone.” She was then taken to a courtroom and told that the person they wanted her to look at would be appearing at some time. Shortly later, the victim testified that a group of seven or eight black men appeared, and that she immediately identified appellant and said aloud, “that’s him.”
The sole argument on appeal is that the detective’s suggestion before this line-up that they wanted the victim to look at someone, coupled with the later statement to the victim that such person would be appearing shortly, made the line-up unnecessarily suggestive. We do not agree. “It would normally be expected, if one were viewing a line-up, that there apparently is at least one person in that line-up that the police suspect may be the one who committed the crime.” Pierce v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 240, 369 N.E.2d 617, 620. The line-up here was proper and the victim’s identification free and spontaneous. There was no unnecessary suggestivity and the victim’s in-court identification testimony was properly admitted at trial.
II.
Appellant’s argument in relation to the victim’s pre-trial voice identification is of the same sort made against the lineup above. Appellant argues that the victim’s in-court identification of him was tainted by an allegedly suggestive pre-trial voice identification, which the victim referred to in her trial testimony. Relative to this question, the victim testified that *14she was not sure whether she was told by police that the voice on the tape was a suspect, but that she could have assumed as much. The conversation on the tape was that of a police officer questioning a person about a rape other than the one in issue here. The victim testified, though, that she was not paying much attention to the substance of the conversation anyv/ay, but rather was listening “for voices.” After listening, the victim told police that it was “his voice.”
Use of voice identification of an offender is permitted in criminal cases. See Barnes v. State, (1971) 255 Ind. 674, 266 N.E.2d 617. The fact that the tape here was a conversation dealing with rape does not alone make the tape unnecessarily suggestive. In view of all the circumstances and evidence on this issue, we find that there was no unnecessary suggestivity in this voice identification procedure.
III.
Appellant finally challenges the sufficiency of evidence. It is well-settled that a conviction of rape may be on the testimony of the victim alone. Beard v. State, (1975) 262 Ind. 643, 323 N.E.2d 216; Lynch v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 360, 316 N.E.2d 372. The victim in this case testified that she was attacked in Market Square Arena Garage after parking her car, and dragged away and raped. She testified that the attack lasted more than five minutes, and she made an in-court identification of appellant as her assailant. Further, police testimony established that fingerprints found on a car near the scene of the crime were the appellant’s. There is thus substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusion by the trier of fact.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Givan, C.J., DeBruler, Hunter, JJ., concur; Prentice, J., concurs in result with opinion.