¶1concurring in result.
¶2Although I view this as an excellent opinion on issues covered, I concur in result only on a seemingly small item which I fear could lead to misinterpretation and problems in future cases.
¶3The majority finds that the statement by B.B.'s mother to him that the police "have a guy in a lineup" would amount to a statement of "suggestivity" that puts into question the defendant's identification. I disagree that the mother's statement is suggestive in the context in which it was used in this identification process.
¶4Everyone knows that when a lineup is held there is someone in the group who is or might be a suspect. As B.B. indicated by his testimony, he assumed that was the case or they certainly wouldn't be holding a lineup and having him view it. The evil sought to be remedied by an undue suggestiveness test is the statement or inference by the police that they have the guilty party in the lineup and need only an identification from this witness to convict him. Thus, a statement to the witness that "We've got the guy here and if you can identify him we can take care of him," or "Other witnesses have identified the guy we've got in the lineup and we're confident he's the guy who assaulted you," might encourage the witness to identify one of the group and feel more comfortable doing it even though he might otherwise question such identification.
¶5I see B.B.'s mother's statement to him as nothing more than informing him there is a lineup he is requested to view and having no suggestiveness to it whatever.
¶6Accordingly, I1 coneur in result only.