Court Opinion

ID: 9719790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:03:47.222638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.992540
License: Public Domain

OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULT
Staton, P.J.
I concure in result. I know of no authority and the majority cites none which recognizes judicially that “. . . On the other hand, the law recognizes that many justly accused of crime will contend they were elsewhere and produce evidence to that effect. . . .”
If Hampton desired to discover the exact time that the state would prove the offense was committed, he could have filed an interrogatory.
The independent in-court identification of Hampton was sufficient to establish his identification as one of the principals who committed the burglary. Stephens v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 326, 295 N.E.2d 622. In Stephens v. State, supra, Chief Justice Givan concluded at p. 624:
“. . . With regard to the identification, Mrs. Collins’ testimony during appellant’s trial clearly established that her *61identification in court was based solely upon her observations of appellant and her recollection of his appearance at the time of the crimes. Thus, any possible irregularity concerning any line-up or photograph identification was harmless.. ..”
Note. — Reported at 359 N.E.2d 276.