Court Opinion

ID: 9517839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:34:37.166111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:00.674834
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Hoffman, J.
I concur in result since I do not agree with the reasoning permitting the admission of a photograph of a check into evidence.
The photograph of the check was admissible since it was proved to be a true representation of that which it purports to represent and it was competent evidence because the witness could testify to give a verbal description of the check.
The check was the objeet stolen and it could have been verbally described by a witness. Hawkins v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 116, 37 N.E.2d 79; Highshew v. Kushto (1956), 126 *306Ind. App. 584, 131 N.E.2d 652 (transfer denied, 235 Ind. 505, 134 N.E.2d 555).
Note. — Reported at 348 N.E.2d 90.