- USD 0.99
Descripción de editorial
In People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal. 2d 621, 7 Cal. Rptr. 273, 354 P.2d 865 (hereafter Gould), this court held that a testifying witness's out-of-court identification "that cannot be confirmed by an identification [of the defendant] at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime." ( Id. at p. 631.) In this case, the Attorney General challenges that holding, contending the requirement is illogical, lacks support in the law, is unsatisfactory as a matter of policy, and is contrary to a statute later enacted by the Legislature (Evidence Code section 411). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that we should overrule Gould's holding that an out-of-court identification is in all cases insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction. Instead, the sufficiency of an out-of-court identification to support a conviction should be determined under the substantial evidence test of People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal. 3d 557, 578, 162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, that is used to determine the sufficiency of other forms of evidence to support a conviction.