While the placement of the suspects in the first and last positions could have made it easier for the roommates to indicate their choice to each other, it is difficult to see how they could have done so. Thus, this procedure was not impermissibly suggestive. Appellant further argues the time lapse between the two viewings of the photo line-ups could have allowed the roommates to communicate their choices to each other. The third roommate testified that he did not speak with the other two during the interim, and there is no evidence in the record to show that the two roommates told the third which photos they picked. Even if the photo lineups were impermissibly suggestive, an independent identification at trial would overcome this.
Sufficient evidence exists to support an independent identification at trial.
Accordingly, under either part of the test the procedures used to identify appellant were reasonable. Sufficiency of Evidence Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction. Deference is given to jury verdicts and if the jury, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have found defendant guilty, the verdict will not be upset. Appellant argues it was unreasonable for the jury to disregard the evidence of his alibi. All three of his family members and the acquaintance he shares with the robbery victims consistently testified that appellant was home with his family that evening.