Griffin v. State

Benham, Judge.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In his appeal he raises four *897enumerations of error. We reverse.

1. Appellant first contends that his motion to suppress identification testimony should have been granted because the pictorial identification process was impermissibly suggestive. To evaluate the validity of his assertion, we must apply the test set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (93 SC 375, 34 LE2d 401) (1972), i.e., “whether under ‘the totality of the circumstances’ the identification was reliable…