holding that the witness must be the one to testify about an extrajudicial identification, not a police officer or other third party
How later courts described this case
- holding that the witness must be the one to testify about an extrajudicial identification, not a police officer or other third party
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BUSSEY, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur for the reason that the evidence of the appellant’s guilt was overwhelming, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967).