State v. Dickson

Summary

The concurring opinion agrees that the defendant's conviction should be affirmed but disagrees with the majority's decision to overrule existing precedent governing first-time in-court identifications. It maintains that the admissibility of such identifications generally lies within the trial court's discretion and that traditional adversarial protections adequately address suggestiveness. The concurrence also argues that the majority lacked authority to adopt a prophylactic rule based on federal constitutional law and improperly micromanaged trial-court proceedings.