two boys’ in-court identifications, admission of alleged statements made by Caldwell, admission of testimony regarding how Caldwell’s actions made the victims feel, and denial o ursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. 2 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3 . Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 4 . Although the State opposed a Neil v. Biggers hearing at the trial level arguing it was unnecessary where the in-court identification forms the first identification the witness made, it does not so argue on appeal. Because we find no error in the admission of the in-court identifications, we express no opinion on whether such a hearing was required under the circumstances. See State v. Lewis, 363 S.C. 37, 43, 609 S.E.2d 515, 518 (2005) (<HOLDING>); but cf. State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 82-83,
holding neil v biggers does not apply to a firsttime incourt identification because the judge is present and can adequately address relevant problems the jury is physically present to witness the identification rather than merely hearing testimony about it and crossexamination offers defendants an adequate safeguard or remedy against suggestive examinations holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant 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 holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution