In addition, as noted, the complainant gave his statement regarding the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the shooting, very soon after he woke up from his sleep, due to his anesthesia from the time of the incident for the purpose of providing medical treatment. Therefore, the complainant should be regarded as someone who gave his testimony regarding the identification without in fact having passed as far as he was concerned from the date of the incident. In this context, it is important to reiterate that the police did not disclose to the defendant the arrest of the defendant as a suspect prior to the complainant's statement regarding the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the act. The picture of the defendant, which was presented to the complainant during his interrogation in order for him to confirm that he was in question, was also shown to him only after he provided his name and identifying details about him. I did not find any basis for the defense's claim that the police "routed" the complainant to identify the defendant.
From the total, the defendant was identified by the complainant under physical conditions that do not cast any real doubt on the credibility of the identification. I am satisfied to determine that the chance that there was a mistake in identification on the part of the complainant, in the circumstances of the case, is quite low and does not rise to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the identification of the defendant by the complainant, in his statement to the police officers at the hospital, also passes the second test, with its two components, in examining the reliability of the identification - the external and objective test.
- In light of the foregoing, I am persuaded that the identification of the defendant as the person who shot the complainant on the basis of the complainant's words was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the complainant's testimony does not stand alone, even though it is a central pillar in the body of evidence, since, as will be detailed below, additional evidence was found that strengthens its credibility. Therefore, the addition of strong evidentiary layers to the identification evidence, as in the present case, removes any fear of mistaken identification.
Requirement for evidentiary reinforcement
- Section 10A(d) The Evidence Ordinance states that a person shall not be convicted on the basis of an external statement of a witness accepted by the court "Unless there is something in the evidence to support it", otherwise it should not be relied upon alone for the purpose of convicting the defendant. This is an evidentiary addition that is not an addendum "Tangles"Rather"Verifies" only. and as determined in a criminal appeal 691/92 Aharon v. State of Israel, IsrSC 50(3), 675, 678: "In contrast to the evidence of aiding, the corroborating evidence does not have to relate specifically to the controversial question, or to the accusation of the offense itself, but rather it is sufficient to provide evidence that increases the credibility of the statement by confirming a detail relevant to the offense in the statement".
In a Criminal Appeal 241/87 Cohen v. State of Israel, IsrSC 42(1) 743, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether "The Thing to Reinforce"We must relate to each and every transgression separately, or perhaps it is possible to suffice with evidence to support the statement in its entirety. The court ruled that the test does not lie in the fact that all the offenses are anchored in the same statement, but rather in the existence of the "Internal connection or substantive proximity between the offenses", in which case there is no need for separate reinforcement for each indictment.