Court Opinion

ID: 9743931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:50:37.783713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:45.829013
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
Arterburn, C.J.
I concur only in the resulting decision, in this case, for the reason that I do not accept the principle that the pre-trial identification of a defendant may be tainted by suggestions made, etc. To me, we are invading the province of the jury in determining the weight to be given evidence of identification or the credibility of the witness making the identification. Cross-examination is the vehicle the law grants to weaken identification which occurs through suggestive means or any other “improper means”.
There is no logical argument presented in the majority opinion why cross-examination did not and could not have brought out any weakness in the identification of the appellant. Again, I say that this court should not invade the province of the jury in determining the issue of identification. This court should not take away from the jury its constitutional duty in such a case, on a theory that some evidence may be “tainted” because someone suggested or insisted upon the identification of the defendant by a witness. Article 1, Sec. 19 of the Constitution of Indiana states:
“In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.”
Note. — Reported in 277 N. E. 2d 791.