The sufficiency of an out-of-court identification to support a conviction is determined under the substantial evidence test and consideration can be given to: (1) the prior familiarity of the witness with defendant; (2) the opportunity of the witness to observe the perpetrator during crime; (3) whether the witness has motive to falsely implicate defendant; (4) and the details of the out-of-court identification. Following a carjacking, the victim and his wife identified appellant as the suspect who was outside a van and pointed a gun at the victim. A second person was inside the vehicle and drove it away. The identification was made immediately after the carjacking. The witness previously had seen the suspect in the neighborhood several times and knew the suspect’s family as they came from the same town in Mexico. Two weeks later, when interviewed by a detective, appellant and his wife again identified appellant as the suspect with the gun and selected his photograph from a photographic line-up. At trial, however, the victim and his wife recanted and testified that appellant was not the one with the gun. Regardless, the jury convicted appellant of carjacking with the use of a firearm. The appellate court rejected appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the gun enhancement, observing that the out-of-court identifications were strong and that evidence had been introduced to suggest that the recantation may have been the result of intimidation.