State v. Henderson and the New Model Jury Charges - New Jersey ...

a-8-08.opn.html
In addition to suggestiveness, the trial court should consider Womble’s drug
and alcohol use immediately before the confrontation, weapon focus, and
lighting, among other relevant factors.
We express no view on the outcome of the hearing. If the trial court finds that
the identification should not have been admitted, then the parties should
present argument as to whether a new trial is needed. We do not review the
record for harmless error only because the parties have not yet argued that
issue. If Womble’s identification was properly admitted, then defendant’s
conviction should be affirmed.
XII. Retroactivity Analysis
Today’s decision announces a new rule of law. For decades, trial courts have
applied the Manson/Madison test to determine the admissibility of
identification evidence. This opinion “breaks new ground” by modifying that
framework. See State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 (2005) (quoting State v.
Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 250-51 (1996)). Because the holding “is sufficiently novel
and unanticipated,” we must consider whether the new rule should be applied
retroactively. Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 251 (citing State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331,
339 (1989)).
When a decision sets forth a new rule, three factors are considered to
determine whether to apply the rule retroactively: “(1) the purpose of the rule
and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of
reliance placed on the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a
retroactive application would have on the administration of justice.” Ibid.
(quoting State v. Nash, 64 N.J. 464, 471 (1974)).
The factors are not of equal weight. The first factor -- the purpose of the rule
-- “is often the pivotal consideration.” Ibid. (quoting State v. Burstein, 85 N.J.
394, 406 (1981)). When, as here, “the new rule is designed to enhance the
reliability of the factfinding process,” courts consider “the likelihood of
untrustworthy evidence being admitted under the old rule” and “whether the
defendant had alternate ways of contesting the integrity of the evidence being
introduced against him.” Burstein, supra, 85 N.J. at 408.
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]