What is the test for admitting identification evidence in a criminal case?

There is no dispute that someone committed the crimes of which appellant was convicted. "In order to determine whether the admission of identification evidence violates a defendant's right to due process of law, we consider (1) whether the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and unnecessary, and, if so, (2) whether the identification itself was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances, taking into account such factors as the opportunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the offense, the witness's degree of attention at the time of the offense, the accuracy of his or her prior description of the suspect, the level of certainty demonstrated at the time of the identification, and the lapse of time between the offense and the identification. [Citations.] [] The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of an unreliable identification procedure. [Citations.]" (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 989-990.)

Moreover, "[g]enerally, a pretrial procedure will only be deemed unfair if it suggests in advance of a witness's identification the identity of the person suspected by the police. [Citation.] However, there is no requirement that a defendant in a lineup, either in person or by photo, be surrounded by others nearly identical in appearance. [Citation.] Nor is the validity of a photographic lineup considered unconstitutional simply where one suspect's photograph is much more distinguishable from the others in the lineup. [Citations.]" (People v. Brandon (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1052.)

Finally, when a defendant challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence, "[o]ur power as an appellate court begins and ends with the determination whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the judgment. [Citation.]" (People v. Hernandez (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1177, 1181-1182.)