MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the victim's in-court identification of defendant. Defendant matched the general description of the suspect that was broadcast over the police radio and was observed running into the woods, a short distance from the scene of the crime, within a brief period of time after the crime was committed. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant so that he could be returned to the crime scene for a showup identification procedure ( see People v. Walker, 292 A.D.2d 791 [Mar. 15, 2002]; People v. Bratcher, 291 A.D.2d 878, 878; People v. Casillas, 289 A.D.2d 1063, 1063-1064). There is no merit to the further contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his request for a moral certainty charge. Such a charge is not mandated where, as here, the evidence of defendant's guilt is both direct and circumstantial ( see People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992; People v. Goncalves, 283 A.D.2d 1005, 1005-1006, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 918; People v Reynolds, 269 A.D.2d 735, 737, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 838, cert denied 531 U.S. 945).