Court Opinion

ID: 9685572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:48:49.951967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.814127
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree the identification testimony of Ivan Stiff was based on an independent origin and was properly admitted.
However, I dissent on the ground the admission of testimony by Thomas 'On-dracek, whether it amounted to an in-court identification or not, was error. Defendant was described by Ondracek as one of the “four that were caught” and as one of the “four that have [our] stuff.”
After this testimony it is futile in my opinion to say, as the majority does, that Ondracek did not identify defendant as one of those committing the robbery. I believe his testimony was designed to — and did— establish defendant was one of the four participants in the crime. The evidence by which this was done was not properly admissible by any standard. It was based entirely on an improper police identification procedure. It was prejudicial and I would reverse for a new trial.
RAWLINGS, J., joins in this dissent.