In Milholland v. State, 319 Ark. 604, 893 S.W.2d 327 (1995), the appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress testimony concerning the victim's out-of-court identifications. The supreme court explained that it is for the trial court to determine if there are sufficient aspects of reliability present in an identification to permit its use as evidence, and that it is then for the jury to decide what weight that identification testimony should be given. We do not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of an identification unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. We do not inject ourselves into the process of determining reliability unless there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Id. Matters of credibility and conflicts in testimony are for the trial court, and those decisions will not be disturbed on appeal. Id. The factors this court examines when considering the reliability of an identification include: 1) opportunity to view the suspect, 2) accuracy of the description, 3) prior misidentification, 4) level of certainty demonstrated at confrontation, 5) failure of witness to identify the defendant on a prior occasion, and 6) lapse of time between alleged act and the identification. Id.