P. v. Bassett
The San Francisco District Attorney charged Raymond D. Bassett and an accomplice with second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) Bassett was alleged to have robbed his victim of an iPhone. Shortly after the crime occurred, the victim identified Bassett as one of the perpetrators during a “cold show.â€[1] A jury later found Bassett guilty of the charge, and after a bifurcated trial, the court found true allegations of a prior serious felony conviction and a prior strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (a)(1), (d), and (e), 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c). Bassett was sentenced to eight years in prison and filed a timely notice of appeal.
In this court, Bassett raises a single issue. He contends the victim’s field identification of him was the result of an identification procedure so impermissibly suggestive that it gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. He argues the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the identification. We find this argument unpersuasive and will therefore affirm.
Comments on P. v. Bassett