¶1dissenting:
¶2In my view of the law, Adam’s testimony as to statements made by Brown in Simpson s presence, positively identifying Simpson as a partner to the crime, was admissible against Simpson as an implied admission. The majority take a different view on the asserted grounds that the record here contains “no showing regarding Simpson’s reaction to the supposed statement by Brown ” * e.” On the contrary, the record shows that after this incriminating statement, Brown and Simpson then proceeded in Adam’s presence to open the gray metal cash box containing *135, and to divide it evenly between themselves after giving Adams *5 in dimes. Certainly that “reaction” on the part of Simpson is a confirmation on his part of the truth of Brown’s statement.
¶3I agree that admittance to the record of this testimony of Kurata to the effect that Cuppemell, who could make no in-court identification, had in fact made a previous lineup identification of Simpson was error. That error, however, does not require a reversal- in this case where there other abundant evidence of Simpson’s guilt, including Brown’s positive identification, and Simpson’s corroboration of that identification in splitting “the take” in the presence of Adam. People v. Canale, 52 Ill. 2d 107, 285 N.E.2d 133, 137 (1972).
¶4I would affirm the conviction.