State v. Hicks

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendant brings forward two questions, arguing that the order denying his motion to suppress was invalid and that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge. We disagree.

I

Defendant moved at trial to suppress the victim’s in-court identification of him as the perpetrator. (The record does not reflect any pre-trial or written motion to suppress.) Following a voir dire hearing, defendant argued that the identification should be suppressed because of an impermissibly suggestive photographic line-up. The court did not make a formal ruling but indicated it would make…