Child molestation. From a jury verdict of guilty, appellant brings this appeal, enumerating nine errors allegedly committed by the trial court. Held:
1. Appellant assigns as error the admission of an in-court identification, alleging that it was fatally tainted by an illegal pre-indictment "one-on-one show-up.” The evidence reveals that, after the victim was molested, she gave the police an accurate description of both the appellant and his automobile, which he had driven to the victim’s residence. Appellant was apprehended and brought to the scene of the incident within thirty minutes, where, in broad daylight, he was positively identified by the victim as the man who had molested her.
In scrutinizing a pre-indictment identification "show-up” for due process violations, the Supreme Court of this state has applied a "totality of the circumstances” test, utilizing standards enunciated in Neil v. Biggers,
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting appellant’s counsel from discussing appellant’s punishment during closing argument. "It is error to instruct the jury as to a possible sentence in a felony case before the jury has determined the question of guilt or innocence.”
Mayo v. State,
3. Appellant complains that the trial court erroneously charged the jury as to appellant’s plea of "not guilty by reason of mental incompetence.” No argument or citation of authority is given in support of this complaint, which is therefore deemed abandoned.
Haskins v. Jones,
4. Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on insanity or mental incompetence, notwithstanding appellant’s failure to request such a charge. In support of this contention, appellant relies solely upon the fact that he filed a plea of "not guilty by reason of mental incompetence.”
Appellant, in his brief, has failed to refer this court to any evidence which would support a charge on insanity, and we are therefore unable to consider this complaint.
Herrin v. State,
5. Appellant argues that the admission into evidence of two "waiver of rights” forms signed by appellant in Jackson and Hall Counties was error, for the reason that such evidence improperly "injected the
*261
[appellant’s] character in evidence.” This contention is without merit.
Allen v. State,
6. Appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial is supported solely by, in appellant’s own words, "the reasons set out in the [foregoing] enumerations of errors.” This contention is without merit, for the reasons discussed in the foregoing Divisions 1-5.
Judgment affirmed.