approximately three weeks. She showed no recalcitrance in any of her photo identifications and was absolutely positive in her identification at trial. Neither do we find error in the showing to Manning of the subsequent 8x10 photo. There’s certainly nothing wrong with a witness being allowed to reaffirm the accuracy of her previous identification as long as that previous identification has not been impermissibly suggestive or tainted. People v. Jordan, 2003 WL 21277267 (Cal.Ct.App. Jun. 03, 2003) (finding that showing a witness a single photo of the defendant to confirm the witness’s previous identification was not unduly suggestive); State v. Marsh, 187 N.C.App. 235, 652 S.E.2d 744, 747-48 (2007) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Tanner, 364 N.C. 229, 695 S.E.2d 97 (2010)) (<HOLDING>). We find no error in the pre-trial
holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred holding that no due process violation occurred where single photo identification was based upon identifiers own observations and recollection and was requested only to confirm defendants identity holding that because defense counsel failed to alert the trial court that he was requesting relief based on a violation of defendants constitutional rights due process argument was not preserved for appellate review holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims