Court Opinion

ID: 9643843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:41:39.934065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:04.355580
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion takes a position on the admissibility of the in-court identification that is so weak that the State was not even willing to raise it in the motion for rehearing. The State argued that the witness did not make a positive identification of appellant as the person who committed the offense,1 yet conceded that if a positive identification had been made, it “might well have been tainted.”
The majority opinion ignores the fact that the witness herself in effect admitted that her identification was based on the post-arrest confrontation, not on her recognition of appellant during the commission of the offense.2 To conclude that the in-court identification was not tainted, the majority must ignore these admissions of the identifying witness.
For these reasons, I must dissent.
ROBERTS and TEAGUE, JJ., join this opinion.

. The record refutes this assertion, as demonstrated in the panel opinion on original submission.

. See testimony in footnote 1 of the panel opinion.