Criminal Law — Evidence — Identification by voice — Indication of assailant by number at "voice line-up" — Testimony of officers as to numbers selected by victims — Hearsay — Corpus delicti — Sufficiency of evidence.
On appeal by defendant from judgment of sentence following conviction on indictments charging rapes and robberies upon five different women on five different dates, in which it appeared that at a "voice line-up" all of the five women who were the victims identified the defendant's voice, by number, as the voice of the man who had attacked them; that at the trial each of these women testified as to the details of the attacks made upon them, and further that each of them at the voice line-up had indicated to one of the police officers, by number, the voice that she had recognized as the voice of her assailant; that none of the women were able to identify the defendant by sight (since in each case the victim had been attacked from behind in darkness), and none was able to state what particular number she had picked out of each line-up, but these numbers were supplied by the testimony of the police officers; that there was some additional evidence along with the identification evidence to prove defendant's guilt, consisting of admissions made by defendant to various police officers in conversations with them; and that the court below, holding that (1) the testimony of the police officers as to the particular numbers picked out by each of the victims at each line-up was admissible, and not hearsay evidence, (2) the Commonwealth met its burden of proving the corpus delicti, and (3) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, entered judgment of sentence; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Argued June 11, 1963.
OPINION PER CURIAM, September 12, 1963:
The judgment of sentence of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge ROBERT W. HONEYMAN reported in 30 Pa. D. C.2d 780.