When identification of the defendant is an issue, a witness who has on previous occasion identified such person may testify to such previous identification. Such identification may be proved by other witnesses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1989–2019 · leading case: State v. Boston, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio 1989).
State v. Boston, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio 1989). “See, also, R.C. 2945.55. Accordingly, admitting a child’s out-of-court identification of the perpetrator under Evid.”
State v. Tolbert, 591 N.E.2d 325 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “2d 238 , the Supreme Court held that, pursuant to R.C. 2945.55, evidence of a prior out-of-court identification of the defendant from a photographic array is admissible at trial if the photographs do not provide the trier of facts with the reasonable inference that the defendant…”
State v. Turvey, 618 N.E.2d 214 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “* * *’ “Thus, a prior identification that is found reliable by a trial judge falls outside the hearsay rule if it is shown that the child-identifier, either at trial or a hearing, had been or is subject to cross-examination under oath concerning the identification statement and…”
State v. Whitt, 589 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “If these conditions are met and the judge finds the statement of prior identification reliable, then the statement of the declarant can be admitted at trial through a third person to whom or in whose presence the identification was made.”
State v. Stults, 2019 Ohio 657 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3דOur review of the record reveals White based his identification on a past interview and investigation of another crime appellant allegedly committed. White testified appellant had the same clothing, backpack, flashlight, and demeanor as the perpetrator, and we find no issue with…”
State v. Morris, 2012 Ohio 22 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3ד801(D)(1)(c) and R.C. 2945.55. Under the evidence rule, a statement is not hearsay if “[t]he declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is * * * one of identification of a person soon after perceiving…”
State v. Yarbrough, 717 N.E.2d 1173 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “55, where identification of the defendant is in issue, a witness who on previous occasion has selected * * * defendant’s photograph from a number of photographs, may testify to such previous photographic identification if the photographs, or the photographs coupled with other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.