Dissenting Opinion
Prentice, J.I dissent and would remand for a determination of taint. If the in-court identification had a proper independent source and was clearly free of taint, the new trial motion should be overruled. United States v. Wade (1967), 388 U. S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149. Otherwise it should be granted, because we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the jury relied upon the accomplice’s testimony rather than upon that of the other witness. White v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 64, 272 N. E. 2d 312. When the rights of the defendant have been clearly violated and there is reasonable grounds to believe that such violation may have prejudiced his cause, he has been placed in a position of grave peril *92to which he should not have been subjected, and a conviction under such circumstances should be reversed. White v. State, supra.
Note. — Reported in 279 N. E. 2d 189.