We conclude that the evidence as to identification of the appellant was ample to warrant submission of the case to the jury. While the conduct of the prosecuting officer in raising the defendant’s right hand to permit the prosecuting witness to see the ring he was wearing was not excusable, we do not think it created prejudicial error. See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908; Holt v. U. S., 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021. 1021.

We find that there was ample basis for the trial court to conclude that the Miranda, warning was properly given.

The judgment is affirmed.