*1 945 Applying Biggers, the five factors of Neil v. 409 U. S. case, “totality to the facts of this considering of the circumstances,” we find that there was not a “substantial likelihood irreparable misidentification.” The trial court did err in State, Burrell v. admitting Compare, the in-court identification. State, Bradley 11); Ga. 792 SE2d 152 Ga. App. supra; State, Morris v. (3) (287 405). 160 Ga.

2. Did testify the trial court err the detective to permitting to what the unidentified woman him telephone? told on the

“When, in legal a investigation, conduct and motives of (i.e., actor are matters which the truth concerning must be found are trial), information, relevant to the issues on then . . . conversations and similar explain evidence known to the actor are admissible to actor’s conduct. But where the conduct of the and motives [Cits.] (i.e., actor are not matters which the truth must concerning be found trial) information, etc., are irrelevant to the issues on then he or she acted shall not be admissible under Code 38-302 [now State, Momon v. OCGA 24-3-2].”

Applying the standards of Momon to the facts of this case as set division, out the foregoing question there can be little unidentified caller’s statement that defendant was the robber and was at his mother’s house highly was relevant to the issues on trial and explain admissible to in determining detective’s conduct who had committed robbery. there was no error statement, admitting duly and the instructed as to its purpose. limited JJ, affirmed. Birdsong concur. II,

William H. Hope Haywood III, H. Turner appellant. Smith, William J. Attorney, District D. Reynolds, Michael Assistant Attorney, District ASSOCIATES, CUMBERLAND BRIDGE LTD. et al. v. SUPPLY,

BUILDERS STEEL INC. Judge.

Birdsong, This single raises issue connection with the en- (OCGA forceability (a) of a labor and materials lien 44-14-361. (Code 67-2001)) against appellants/property owners. jury, After trial before a a verdict was returned in favor of appellants appellee’s lien. All against appellants’ enumerations appellee timely of error relate to the issue whether filed its lien “within three months after the of the work....” OCGA *2 (2) (Code 67-2002). 44-14-362 The evidence at trial § appellee complete demonstrated that was scheduled to its on work the subject project on March and that it did complete pursuant most of its work to the by contract that date. However, the evidence further appellee demonstrated that returned 21, the April 1981, to construction site on perform repair to some perform work and to some minor installation. The latter work was separately appellee invoiced but charged nothing extra for the work. Appellee’s president testified that contemplated this work was by original the simply contract and was work that was not completed 28,1981. as of March Appellants contend that the contract work was completed, (2) (Code within meaning the of OCGA 44-14-362 67-2002), on 28, March 1981. Appellee filed its lien July 14,

“Neither the beginning nor the of ending construction controls the time when the claim of lien for furnishing and [labor materials] for the improvement of... real estate Levy must be filed.” E. v. G. C. Corp., 673, Ga. As to liens for either furnished, labor or materials the claim of lien must be filed within three months from the date on which the last service was furnished or materials supplied. Id. The evidence in this clearly provides case sufficient upon basis jury the could conclude that the last services and pursuant materials to the contract between appellants’ contractor were 21,1981. furnished on April the jury was authorized concluding that the lien was filed within the 90-day statutory time limitation. As the jury’s verdict is amply supported by the issue, evidence on this it will not be disturbed this court and the trial court did not err in denying appellants’ motion for directed verdict and judgment notwith- standing the verdict. J., affirmed. P. Carley, J., concurs. concurs

specially.

Danny Bailey, C. appellants. for Bailey,

Grover C. for concurring specially. Judge, find authorized to that the majority the agree with three months lien was filed within the claim of the evidence that from the contract. the work under completion of the date of the Levy v. G. language the from However, I do not believe that 339) by the quoted Levy as quotes majority case. The applicable is to this majority “ the of construction follows: ‘Neither furnishing lien the claim of [labor Levy must be filed.’ of... real estate materials] labor furnishing Levy E. did not involve Corp., [supra]” v. G. C. of lien filed connec- rather dealt with a claim or materials but in the plans to be used of architectural with tion In that the claim was improvements. finding certain construction of filed, con- timely plaintiff-architect’s rejected this court construction on begin tention that defendants did not “[s]ince plans use improvement, begin their and thus did not May, filing of the claim purpose that until about the first of with that set of factual ample time.” It connection went on to hold that either circumstances this court “[n] *3 claim lien of the real furnishing plans (Emphasis supplied.) Levy estate must be filed.” G. Thus, bar, involving at a case such the one materials, of labor and the date of and, submit, Levy has important

construction under the contract application. no HEAD v. THE STATE. Presiding Judge. robbery and appeals

Defendant his conviction for armed Held: general grounds. enumerates as error the as a McDonald’s The state’s evidence was as follows: Just masked men accosted closing evening, restaurant was two them in and forced manager employee and an outside the back door employee saw pistol. they As went the back door use of a earlier, car, minutes parking which he had noticed lot some all the ordered The two intruders up drive to the back door. them, watched one of them the basement where employees into