Court Opinion

ID: 9672181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:19.895702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.771606
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Presiding Judge
(concurring in result).
It appears to me that what is said in the main opinion about the justification for the one-to-one confrontation at the Williams residence is not necessary, because it is quite clear the victim’s in-court identification was not based on what occurred at the Williams residence, but was based on her observations made immediately before and at the time of the offense, which the opinion, it seems to me, in fact, relies on and sets forth in some, detail. I, therefore, concur in the result reached, but not in the portion of the opinion which endorses the actions taken at the Williams residence. Such a confrontation was not necessary and in most cases will simply add a needless risk to successful law enforcement.