Court Opinion

ID: 9722199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:20:07.211179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.855310
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I dissent on the grounds that the lack of identification of the appellant in the State’s case required a directed verdict in his behalf.
It seems to me that basic due process would require that when the evidence linking the appellant to the alleged criminal acts is an eye-witness identification the in-court identification should consist of pointing out which person in the court committed the acts. It is a material element of the State’s case to prove that the person who committed the crime is the person presently on trial. Having a supposed eye-witness testify to a name or refer to the title “defendant” does not tend to prove this element but merely tends to establish that criminal acts were committed by a person who may or may not be the present defendant. Trials are designed to test the truth or falsity of allegations made against a person in custody not against a name in the abstract. A definite link must be established between the person actually on trial and the crime. It is not sufficient to simply link the crime and a name.
Note.—Reported in 287 N. E. 2d 347.