context: The "issue" the trial court ruled on was not whether a Wade hearing was necessary -- and this is natural enough, in light of defendant's failure to ask for one when invited to -- but simply whether the identification was admissible at all. The Wade-hearing issue was not preserved, and defendant does not contend that it was plain error not to hold a Wade hearing. Accordingly, we decline to address whether a Wade hearing was necessary under these circumstances.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 449 U.S. 341, 349
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that, although Wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances, it is not mandated in all cases
citation_a.sentence: State v. White, 172 Vt. 493, 499, 782 A.2d 1187, 1192 (2001) (declining to address claim raised for the first time on appeal where party failed to assert plain error); see also Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 (1981) (holding that, although Wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances, it is not mandated in all cases).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 782 A.2d 1187, 1192
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to address claim raised for the first time on appeal where party failed to assert plain error
citation_b.sentence: State v. White, 172 Vt. 493, 499, 782 A.2d 1187, 1192 (2001) (declining to address claim raised for the first time on appeal where party failed to assert plain error); see also Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 (1981) (holding that, although Wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances, it is not mandated in all cases).