Anthony D. Gorman v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the victim’s in-court testimony that she was one hundred percent positive of her identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery was sufficient to support the defendant’s robbery conviction
• holding that testimony of single eyewitness was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for robbery where witness stated that she was “one hundred percent certain” that defendant was the one who robbed her and her friend
• holding eyewitness’ unequivocal testimony identifying the defendant as perpetrator and statement that defendant was armed with a gun was sufficient to support armed robbery conviction
• holding that when State must prove possession of firearm in commission of crime, the weapon need not be introduced at trial and conviction may be based on witness’s testimony that he or she saw defendant in possession of what appeared to be a gun
• explaining that the “reliability of particular evidence must be gauged by the fact-finder, not this court. Any potential errors in eyewitness identification must be resolved during trial, not on appeal.”
• “The reliability of particular evidence must be gauged by the fact-finder, not this court. Any potential errors in eyewitness identification must be resolved during trial, not on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).