Court Opinion

ID: 9689231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:25:39.549914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.311028
License: Public Domain

LARSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result but write separately because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Garity’s identification testimony should have been excluded on the ground it was the sole product of his dreams.
A witness’s ability to identify a subject is frequently enhanced between the time of the event in question and the witness’s in-court identification. This enhancement might be through viewing the defendant in photographs or lineups or simply through concentrated thought about the event. We have nevertheless allowed the testimony to be admitted. Here, Garity’s ability to identify Wells was apparently enhanced by recurring dreams. I do not believe this rendered the testimony inadmissible but should, as in the case of enhanced recollection through other means, only go to its weight.
CARTER, J., joins this special concurrence.