Convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit rape, the defendant appeals under G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G. He argues only two alleged errors, the denial of his motions to suppress (1) a distinctive orange and green sweat shirt, and (2) both out-of-court and in-court identifications of him by the victim. We summarize the trial judge’s conclusions, which are supported by elaborate and detailed findings and by the reported testimony. The police had probable cause to believe that a serious felony had occurred on the grounds of a boys’ school, that the assailant might be extremely dangerous and was still on the grounds, and that the defendant, the only known suspect, had a room in one of the school buildings. The headmaster of the school unlocked the door to that room. The police entered, found the defendant in bed and saw the sweat shirt. The defendant voluntarily consented to confront the victim and, without prompting, voluntarily put on the sweat shirt and went with the police. Two hours or less after the assault, the victim identified the defendant as the assailant. The judge ruled, we
Judgment affirmed.