¶1concurring in result and dissenting.
¶2I cannot agree with the statement made in the majority opinion that "the pre-trial confrontations conducted by the police in this case were impermissibly suggestive, and testimony regarding identifications resulting from these procedures should have been suppressed."
¶3The majority holds that the pretrial confrontations were conducted while displaying goods taken from the victims and found on the persons of appellant and Pemberton. While under some circumstances such display might be considered suggestive, the facts in the case at bar do not logically lead to that conclusion. At the time of the confrontations, only a short time had elapsed since the crime had been committed.
¶4Evidence shows that appellant and Pem-berton had robbed the same victims on a previous occasion. When the victims viewed the suspects, appellant immediately was identified by the victim and Pemberton was identified by one victim and after closer serutiny was identified by a victim who had doubts upon his initial viewing. In *511view of the excellent opportunity of the victims to view their assailants and the nature of their identification, it is ludicrous to believe that the presence of the stolen objects had any initial impact upon the identification.
¶5I agree with the majority opinion that theft was included in the robbery charge and merged therein. However, I disagree with the majority in its ruling that criminal confinement was an included offense with the robbery. In so holding, the majority recognizes the long-standing rule of law stated in Flowers v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 100 that a criminal may in accomplishing his criminal purposes commit more than one criminal act and may be convicted and sentenced for each.
¶6However, the majority holds that in the manner in which the State charged appellant, confinement was included within the robbery. It is obvious from the charging affidavit and from the facts stated that the robbery was accomplished by the use of weapons and forcing the victims to lie on the floor. The recitation of the additional fact that the perpetrators bound and gagged their victims, covered them with a blanket, and threw gasoline on them constituted a separate and distinct allegation and proof of a separate confinement committed in conjunction with the robbery.
¶7I would affirm the conviction of confinement.
¶8I must dissent from the majority opinion.
¶9I cannot agree with the majority that "'the pretrial confrontations conducted by the police in this case were impermissibly suggestive, and testimony regarding identifications resulting from these procedures should have been suppressed." I join in Justice Givan's opinion concurring in result and dissenting. '
¶10I am astounded at the majority's statement in its second issue, entitled "Identification Procedures":
The manner in which the police conducted both of these pre-trial confrontations was egregious and is deserving of the strongest judicial condemnation.
¶11On the contrary, I view this as good police work that would meet with the approval of the citizens of this State and judicial opinions of courts of all jurisdictions including the United States Supreme Court. This defendant and his accomplice were apprehended by the police about three miles from the scene of the crime two hours or less from the time of its commission. They had on their persons the items taken from the victims as well as the weapons used. It is not surprising they were found guilty by juries in view of the overwhelming evidence available.
¶12I believe the trial court erred in imposing sentences on both the theft and robbery convictions. Otherwise I would affirm the trial court.