#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS LEE DUNLAP.

(Filed 11 October, 1967.)

Appeal by defendant from Froneberger, J., January-February 1967 Criminal Session of MecKLENbubg Superior Court.

The defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the robbery of David Eller on 8 December 1966. The bill alleged that with the threatened use of a pistol, the defendant robbed Eller of $25.00 in money. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty.

. Since the defendant made no motion for judgment as of nonsuit and the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the charge, it is only briefly summarized.

David Eller testified that he was a cab driver and that about 11:30 in the evening he delivered a passenger on Badger Court; that as he did so the defendant came to his cab and got in the front seat, “[t]hen he turned around and stuck a gun on me." Another person joined Dunlap, and the two ordered Eller to drive. When he stopped his cab at Horne Drive, Dunlap told Eller to give him his money, and Eller then handed him $25.00 in cash. The defendant and his companion then got out of the cab, and Eller immediately reported the incident to the police.

Later Eller saw the defendant in a line-up at the Charlotte Police Department and identified him as the person who robbed him. The State offered in evidence a photograph of the line-up which was admitted for the purpose of illustrating the witness’ testimony and over the objection of the defendant.

The defendant offered no evidence.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from a sentence of imprisonment, the defendant appealed.

Charles V. Bell, Attorney for defendant appellant.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; 'Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General; Eugene A. Smith, Trial Attorney, for the State.

*509Pless, J.

The defendant’s only exception is to the admission of the defendant’s photograph during a line-up, alleging this to be a violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The same question of law is presented and determined in the case of State v. McKissick, ante, 500, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat the rulings therein made.

Upon the authority of that case, the defendant’s exception is overruled.

No error.