context: Her identification of the defendant should not be discounted simply because she is not a police officer specially trained to observe details. Further, her description of the burglar, although lacking in some details, substantially agreed with the defendant's appearance.
citation_a.signal: but cf.
citation_a.identifier: 385 A.2d 834, 834
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that the accuracy of the victim's description was diminished by his failure to mention the defendant's moustache, "of which there was strong evidence"
citation_a.sentence: But cf. State v. LeClair, 118 N.H. at 220, 385 A.2d at 834 (stating that the accuracy of the victim’s description was diminished by his failure to mention the defendant’s moustache, “of which there was strong evidence”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 414 A.2d 1288, 1290
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the descriptions given by three witnesses were sufficiently accurate, despite the fact that they varied in detail
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Heald, 120 N.H. 319, 323, 414 A.2d 1288, 1290 (1980) (holding that the descriptions given by three witnesses were sufficiently accurate, despite the fact that they varied in detail); see also State v. Allard, 123 N.H. 209, 214, 459 A.2d 259, 262, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 933 (1983) (upholding the trial court’s finding that the identification was reliable where “[t]he inconsistency between the defendant’s appearance and the victim’s description of him was limited to the absence of a moustache and a discrepancy in hair length”).