Hospital room show-ups have been upheld as necessary where a serious injury has disabled the witness or defendant. See Stovall v. Denno, supra; Trask v. Robbie 421 F.2d 773, 775 (1st Cir. 1970); Johnson v. People 172 Colo. 72, 81, 470 P.2d 37 (1970); People v. Young, 6 Ill. App.3d 119, 123, 285 N.E.2d 159 (1972); People v. Rivera, 22 N.Y.2d 453, 455, 293 N.Y.S.2d 271, 239 N.E.2d 873 (1968). In other instances, however, hospital show-ups have been considered unnecessary because the suspect or witness has been in no immediate danger of death.

He also found the police could think the defendant seriously wounded. See People v. Smith, 18 Ill. App.3d 859, 864 (1974); People v. Young, 6 Ill. App.3d 119, 123 (1972). With Tennyson and the defendant both in the emergency area of the hospital for treatment, it would seem logical and prudent to the police to bring them together. The setting of the hospital confrontation was suggestive, but that of course is true of the class; the considerations mentioned above are thought to outweigh the obvious dangers.

• 4 The intent to commit rape may, however, be inferred from the conduct of the accused, the character of the assault, the acts done and the time and place of the occurrence, as well as from the words spoken. (See People v. Young (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 119, 285 N.E.2d 159; People v. Moore (1966), 77 Ill. App.2d 62, 222 N.E.2d 142; People v. Kruse (1943), 385 Ill. 42, 44, 52 N.E.2d 200.) The fact that the defendant broke off the attack after encountering resistance does not change the nature of the attack up to that point.

The Court held, however, that the test to determine a violation of due process in the conduct of a confrontation depends upon the totality of circumstances surrounding that confrontation. Where a defendant proves that the identification procedure was so suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, a deprivation of due process is established and the identification testimony must be suppressed. ( Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188; People v. Johnson, 45 Ill.2d 38, 257 N.E.2d 3.) Hospital show-ups per se cannot be considered to be so suggestive as to give rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. Hospital show-ups have been upheld where the physical condition of either the victim or the accused renders such a confrontation imperative ( Stovall v. Denno, supra; People v. Young, 6 Ill. App.3d 119, 285 N.E.2d 159), or where the victim's excellent opportunity to view the defendant during the commission of the crime negates the likelihood of misidentification. People v. McCorry, 51 Ill.2d 343, 282 N.E.2d 425.

In our judgment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendants' motion for a continuance. (See People v. Young, 6 Ill. App.3d 119, 285 N.E.2d 159; People v. Harvey, 5 Ill. App.3d 499, 285 N.E.2d 179; compare People v. Johnson, 110 Ill. App.2d 292, 249 N.E.2d 194.) And as to the trial court's admonitions to defendants before their guilty pleas were accepted, we find them adequate and in substantial compliance with the rule of the Illinois Supreme Court.