See Yancey v. State, 232 Ga. 167 ( 205 S.E.2d 282). '(T)he factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.' Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 ( 93 SC 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401). See Hicks v. State, 167 Ga. App. 771, 773 (1) ( 307 S.E.2d 548)." Heard v. State, 170 Ga. App. 130, 133 (8) ( 316 S.E.2d 504).

The factors to be considered by the trial court in determining the likelihood that irreparable misidentification may have resulted from a suggestive pre-trial identification procedure are set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196 ( 93 SC 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401) (1972), as follows: (1) The witness' opportunity to view the accused at the time of the offense; (2) the witness' degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness' prior description; and (4) the level of certainty of the identification. See Hicks v. State, 167 Ga. App. 771, 773 ( 307 S.E.2d 548) (1983). Each of these factors militates against the possibility that the showup in this case resulted in a substantial likelihood of misidentification, with the exception of the first, the officer having had only a second or two to view the accused during the chase.

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 ( 93 SC 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401). See Hicks v. State, 167 Ga. App. 771, 773 (1) ( 307 S.E.2d 548). There are several key facts reflected in the evidence which lead this court to believe that the victim's and Sergeant Reese's in court identification of the defendant were correctly admitted into evidence.