In People v. McKenzie, 205 Mich. App. 466, 471-472; 517 N.W.2d 791 (1994), citing People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289, 302; 505 N.W.2d 528 (1993), cert den 510 U.S. 1058; 114 S. Ct. 725; 126 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1994), this Court clarified that a defendant is generally not entitled to counsel at a precustodial photographic lineup. A defendant is entitled to "counsel at a precustodial investigatory photographic lineup" only when the "circumstances underlying the investigation and the lineup are 'unusual.'" McKenzie, 205 Mich. App. at 472. The Court has indicated what it considers "unusual circumstances": Although the Michigan Supreme Court did not elaborate or clearly explain the unusual circumstances under which a defendant would be entitled to counsel, this Court believes it would have to be similar to the circumstances in People v. Cotton 38 Mich. App. 763; 197 N.W.2d 90 (1972) or where the witness has previously made a positive identification and the clear intent of the lineup is to build a case against the defendant. McKenzie, 205 Mich. App. at 472.