In Luna v. State, 268 S.W.3d 594, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that "the following five non-exclusive factors should be weighed against the corrupting effect of an suggestive identification procedure in assessing reliability under the totality of the circumstances: (1) the opportunity of the witnesses to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witnesses degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witnesses' prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witnesses at the confrontation; (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.