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

a-8-08.opn.html
« Citation
Data
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of
the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the
Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized).
State v. Larry R. Henderson (A-8-08)(062218)
[NOTE: This is a companion case to State v. Cecelia X. Chen, also filed today.]
Argued January 20, 2009 -- Reargued March 28, 2011 -- Decided August 24, 2011
RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court.
In this appeal the Court considers the viability of the current legal standard for analyzing
the reliability of eyewitness identifications.
Rodney Harper was shot to death in a Camden apartment early in the morning on January
1, 2003. James Womble was present when two men forcefully entered the apartment, seeking
to collect money from Harper. Womble knew one of the men, co-defendant, George Clark,
but the other man was a stranger. According to the State’s evidence, Clark shot Harper while
the stranger held a gun on Womble in a small, dark hallway. Thirteen days later, police
showed Womble a photo array from which he identified defendant as the stranger. That
identification lies at the heart of this decision.
The trial court conducted a pre-trial Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of
Womble’s identification of defendant. That hearing revealed that the identification procedure
was presided over by a detective who was not a primary investigator in the case. Nonetheless,
when Womble was unable to make a final identification, the two investigating officers
intervened and encouraged him to “do what you have to do and we’ll be out of here.” Womble
followed by identifying defendant. Womble never recanted the identification, but during the
Wade hearing he testified that he felt as though Detective Weber was “nudging” him to
choose defendant’s photo, and that there was pressure to make a choice.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the officers’ behavior was not
impermissibly suggestive and ruled that evidence of the identification was admissible. The
trial court applied the two-part Manson/Madison test to evaluate the admissibility of the
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]