What is the sufficiency of identification evidence in a criminal case based primarily on a single witness's positive identification of a suspect?

In determining the sufficiency of identification evidence, we give consideration to the opportunity for identification, the lapse of time between the crime and the identification, the extent of emotion, such as extreme fright, experienced by the witnesses, and the extent to which the initial description comports with the accused. United States v. Smith, 563 F.2d 1361, 1363 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1021 (1978). Where the witnesses display a high degree of certainty about their identification of a suspect, minor discrepancies in their initial descriptions will not invalidate the identification. See United States v. Monks, 774 F.2d 945, 956-57 (9th Cir.1985). We recognize that "the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification." United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 228 (1967). Nonetheless, the testimony of a single, uncorroborated witness can be sufficient to support a conviction. Smith, 563 F.2d at 1363; see also United States v. Larios, 640 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.1981) (finding sufficient evidence in testimony of single witness who was also government informant); United States v. Sims, 617 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir.1980) (upholding bank robbery conviction based primarily on victim's positive identification of robber who had obscured everything but his eyes during robbery).