In Bedford v. State, 293 Md. 172, 443 A.2d 78 (1982), an elderly couple who were returning to their home were confronted by a man who robbed and beat them and then ransacked their house. Id. at 173. The attacker remained in the victims' home for over an hour, and was within their sight for about half an hour. Id. at 173-74. After the attack, both victims participated in creating a composite sketch of the robber. Id. at 174. They also identified Bedford as their attacker from a photo array. Id. at 174. But, several months later, at a motions hearing, the victims were unable to identify Bedford. Id. at 174. They were not asked to attempt an identification in the presence of the jury at trial. Id. at 174. The jury found Bedford guilty of multiple offenses, including two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon and one count of daytime housebreaking. Id. at 173. On appeal, Bedford asserted that the victims' extrajudicial identification, which was not confirmed by an identification at trial, and which lacked corroborating evidence, was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Bedford considered the decision of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Gould, 54 Cal. 2d 621, 7 Cal. Rptr. 273, 354 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1960). Quoting Gould, 354 P.2d at 867, the Bedford Court stated, 293 Md. at 177-78: "Evidence of an extrajudicial photographic identification is admissible, not only to corroborate an identification made at the trial, but as independent evidence of identity. Unlike other testimony that cannot be corroborated by proof of prior consistent statements unless it is first impeached, evidence of an extrajudicial identification is admitted regardless of whether the testimonial identification is impeached, because the earlier identification has greater probative value than an identification made in the courtroom after the suggestions of others and the circumstances of the trial may have intervened to create a fancied recognition in the witness' mind. The failure of the witness to repeat the extrajudicial identification in court does not destroy its probative value, for such failure may be explained by loss of memory or other circumstances. The extrajudicial identification tends to connect the defendant with the crime, and the principal danger of admitting hearsay evidence is not present since the witness is available at the trial for cross-examination."