Task: Text Completion
Input (English): error Austin v. State, 603 N.E.2d 169, 171 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) trans. denied. Thus, Miles has waived consideration of any error resulting from admission of the in-court identification evidence by his failure to object at trial. Id. Waiver notwithstanding, Detective Gieselman's pre-trial identification was not impermissibly suggestive so that it tainted his in-court identification. A conviction based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pre-trial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. O'Connell v. State, 742 N.E.2d 943, 948 (Ind.2001); see also Swigeart v. State, 749 N.E.2d 540, 544 (Ind.2001) (<HOLDING>). Our supreme court has long held that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to protect defendants sixth amendment rights a court must determine whether witness identification testimony was tainted by impermissibly suggestive procedures (B) holding that a showup identification was not impermissibly suggestive where it took place immediately after the unlawful conduct and was necessary to avoid arresting the wrong person (C) holding due process requires suppression of testimony regarding pretrial identification when procedure employed is impermissibly suggestive (D) holding when the defendant timely objected to an incourt identification by an eyewitness the trial judge should have directed the government to provide an outofcourt lineup or other protective procedure to avoid an impermissibly suggestive incourt identification (E) holding that a spontaneous accidental identification by two law enforcement officials of a suspect in handcuffs upon their return to the police station was not impermissibly suggestive
Output (English): (C)