Harris v. State, No. 277S133

Docket NºNo. 277S133
Citation268 Ind. 12, 373 N.E.2d 149
Case DateMarch 07, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 149

373 N.E.2d 149
268 Ind. 12
James Allen HARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 277S133.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 7, 1978.

Page 150

Noble R. Pearcy, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Elmer Lloyd Whitmer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellant Harris was convicted of rape at the conclusion of a jury trial in Marion Criminal Court on June 21, 1976, and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Three issues are presented for our review: (1) whether an in-court identification of appellant by the victim was proper, in light of pre-trial identification procedures; (2) whether the [268 Ind. 13] court properly admitted testimony by the victim relating to a pre-trial voice identification of appellant on tape, and; (3) whether the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.

I.

The facts relevant to the allegedly tainted in-court identification of appellant by the victim are as follows. The victim testified that she was called to come down to the police station, and informed by a detective that they wanted her to "look at someone." She was then taken to a courtroom and told that the person they wanted her to look at would be appearing at some time. Shortly later, the victim testified that a group of seven or eight black men appeared, and that she immediately identified appellant and said aloud, "that's him."

The sole argument on appeal is that the detective's suggestion before this line-up that they wanted the victim to look at someone, coupled with the later statement to the victim that such person would be appearing shortly, made the line-up unnecessarily suggestive. We do not agree. "It would normally be expected, if one were viewing a line-up, that there apparently is at least one person in that line-up that the police suspect may be the one who committed the crime." Pierce v. State (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 617, 620. The line-up here was proper and the victim's identification free and spontaneous. There was no unnecessary suggestivity and the victim's in-court identification testimony was properly admitted at trial.

II.

Appellant's argument in relation to the victim's pre-trial voice identification is of the same sort made against the line-up above. Appellant argues that the victim's in-court identification of him was tainted by an allegedly suggestive pre-trial voice identification, which the victim referred to in her trial testimony. Relative to this question, the victim testified that [268 Ind. 14] she was not sure whether she was told by police that the voice on the tape was a suspect, but that she could have assumed as much. The conversation on the tape was that of a police officer questioning a person about a rape other than the one in issue here. The victim testified, though, that she was not paying much attention to the substance of the conversation anyway, but rather was listening "for voices." After listening, the victim told police that it was "his voice."

Use of voice identification of an offender is permitted in criminal cases. See Barnes v. State (1971) 255 Ind. 674, 266 N.E.2d 617. The fact that the tape here was a conversation dealing with rape does not alone make the tape unnecessarily suggestive. In view of all the circumstances and evidence on this issue, we find that there was no unnecessary suggestivity in this voice identification procedure.

III.

Appellant finally challenges the sufficiency of evidence. It is well-settled that a conviction of rape may be on the testimony of the victim alone. Beard v. State (1975)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 de novembro de 1980
    ...process, but does not make clear how the process was unduly suggestive or otherwise improperly Page 740 done. See Harris v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 12, 373 N.E.2d 149. Cobb's trial attorney was with him during all of the line-up procedure and was given an opportunity to select other persons ......
  • State v. Waddy, No. 90-22
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 15 de abril de 1992
    ...the desirability of voice lineups. See State v. Johnson (1983), 207 Mont. 214, 222, 674 P.2d 1077, 1081; Harris v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 12, 17, 373 N.E.2d 149, 152 (concurring opinion). See, also, White v. State (Alaska App.1989), 773 P.2d 211, 214. We emphasize that we are not requiring ......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
    • United States
    • 29 de janeiro de 1979
    ...such an instruction is a correct statement of the law. Buchanan v. State (1976), Ind.App., 348 N.E.2d 70; Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 149. Further, since all instructions are to be read together to discern if reversible error exists, Carter v. State (1977), Ind., 361 N.E.2d 120......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 de outubro de 1979
    ...It is well-settled that a conviction of rape may be on the testimony of the victim Page 785 alone. Harris v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 149; Beard v. State, (1975) 262 Ind. 643, 323 N.E.2d 216; Lynch v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 360, 316 N.E.2d 372. The Court of Appeals quotes extensively ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 7 de novembro de 1980
    ...process, but does not make clear how the process was unduly suggestive or otherwise improperly Page 740 done. See Harris v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 12, 373 N.E.2d 149. Cobb's trial attorney was with him during all of the line-up procedure and was given an opportunity to select other persons ......
  • State v. Waddy, No. 90-22
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 15 de abril de 1992
    ...the desirability of voice lineups. See State v. Johnson (1983), 207 Mont. 214, 222, 674 P.2d 1077, 1081; Harris v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 12, 17, 373 N.E.2d 149, 152 (concurring opinion). See, also, White v. State (Alaska App.1989), 773 P.2d 211, 214. We emphasize that we are not requiring ......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 de outubro de 1979
    ...It is well-settled that a conviction of rape may be on the testimony of the victim Page 785 alone. Harris v. State, (1978) Ind., 373 N.E.2d 149; Beard v. State, (1975) 262 Ind. 643, 323 N.E.2d 216; Lynch v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 360, 316 N.E.2d 372. The Court of Appeals quotes extensively ......
  • Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
    • United States
    • 29 de janeiro de 1979
    ...such an instruction is a correct statement of the law. Buchanan v. State (1976), Ind.App., 348 N.E.2d 70; Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 373 N.E.2d 149. Further, since all instructions are to be read together to discern if reversible error exists, Carter v. State (1977), Ind., 361 N.E.2d 120......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT