concluding that, even though appellant was only person in array with bright white pants, was shortest person in array, and was only person with triangular mark above his head, trial court did not err in allowing witness's in-court identification of appellant when it was based on remembering that appellant cashed check at bank and witness made in-court identification based on bank observations
How later courts described this case
- concluding that, even though appellant was only person in array with bright white pants, was shortest person in array, and was only person with triangular mark above his head, trial court did not err in allowing witness's in-court identification of appellant when it was based on remembering that appellant cashed check at bank and witness made in-court identification based on bank observations
- finding the question of whether the print was verified by another expert was improper, since it is an attempt to bolster the testifying expert's testimony, although such a question would be proper as a predicate to introducing the second technician's analysis
- finding that appellant=s consent to search, the finding of evidence, and appellant=s confrontation with the evidence were intervening circumstances between the arrest and confession in favor of appellant
- stating that prospective juror is not subject to a challenge for cause 21 “if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring.
Perceiving that exigent circumstances did exist, and thus appellant’s arrest was proper under Article 14.04, V.A.C.C.P., I disagree with the need for the majority to enter into any type of discussion regarding the admission into evidence of appellant’s confessions and any attenuating circumstances. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).
‘The initial fingerprints, which were themselves the fruit of petitioner’s illegal arrest ... and which were used to extract the confession from petitioner, cannot be deemed sufficient ‘attenuation’ to break the connection between the illegal arrest merely because they also formed the basis for an arrest warrant that was filed while petitioner was being interrogated.”
However, because I agree with the result ultimately reached by the majority, I concur with the judgment of the Court.