Court Opinion

ID: 9523546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:43:48.511695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:27.717709
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
Concurring. I concur in affirmance because the victim of this robbery had sufficient opportunity to observe his robber to render his identification testimony both substantial and probative. This case is thereby distinguished from Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641, and Gaddis v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 23, 251 N.E.2d at 658.
I concur in the majority opinion only to the extent that it expresses views which are not in conflict with the views expressed in Baker and Gaddis.
Note. — Reported at 290 N.E.2d 504.