Opinion
52576.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 13, 1976.
DECIDED OCTOBER 1, 1976.
Burglary. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Alverson.
Robert C. Ray, for appellants.
Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, H. Allen Moye, Harvey Moskowitz, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
The defendant appeals his conviction for burglary. Held:
1. It is contended that the defendant's identification by two witnesses was impermissibly tainted by an illegal show-up identification.
No objection was interposed in the trial court with regard to the error now urged. Moreover, the showup was not unnecessarily suggestive nor was there a likelihood of misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 ( 93 SC 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401). The showup was an on the scene confrontation conducted as soon as possible after the offense. It occurred five minutes after the witnesses saw the accused fleeing the scene. As stated in Watson v. State, 349 A.2d 738 (1975), it was an "immediate product of the offense and defendant's apprehension." Hence, "practicalities inherent in this type of situation suggest that an immediate on-the-scene confrontation between victim and suspect is essential both to law enforcement and to fairness toward innocent suspects." 349 A.2d 740.
Under the circumstances here, we find that the showup did not have the effect of nullifying the witnesses' identification of the defendant. This ground is without merit.
2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
3. A charge complained of which instructed the jury as to recent possession has, in substance, been approved by both this court and the Supreme Court. McGinty v. State, 134 Ga. App. 399, 403 ( 214 S.E.2d 678); Workman v. State, 137 Ga. App. 746, 748 ( 224 S.E.2d 757); Aiken v. State, 226 Ga. 840, 844 ( 178 S.E.2d 202).
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.