Mangrum v. State

Shulman, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property. We affirm.

1. Defendant complains that an in-court identification was impermissibly suggestive since defendant was the only black male present in court (other than several members of the jury). Lowe v. State, 136 Ga. App. 631 (1) (222 SE2d 50), controls this issue adversely to defendant’s contentions, holding that “[w]e know of no authority . . . which would prohibit, as unduly suggestive, an exclusively in-court identification . . .” See also Crews v. State, 142 Ga. App. 319 (2) (235 SE2d 756).

2. We cannot agree…