Court Opinion

ID: 9629153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:38:13.43308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:16.061173
License: Public Domain

Collins, C. J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur in the result announced by the court’s opinion and certain of the reasoning leading to that result.
I dissent, however, from extension of the doctrine of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) to a pretrial examination of'photos or mug-shots ,of a suspect then in custody. If the rule *141in Wade is to be thus extended, it should be done by the United States Supreme Court, but not this court.
The majority opinion seems anxious to once more outleap the United States Supreme Court. I feel no legal compulsion to join in that leap.
The record in this case leaves no doubt the true identification of appellant by both the victim and the two women was from their observations at the scene of the crime, independent of pretrial identification. The majority opinion agrees. We should stop there and at least wait until a pretrial identification from mug shots presents a serious question of prejudice before we undertake pronouncement of another constitutional rule in the evidence field.
Mowbray, J., concurs with the views expressed above by Chief Justice Collins.