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

a-8-08.opn.html
an identification is admissible; that is not heavily weighted by factors that can be corrupted by
suggestiveness; that promotes deterrence in a meaningful way; and that focuses on helping
jurors both understand and evaluate the effects that various factors have on memory. Two
principal changes to the current system are needed. First, the revised framework should allow
all relevant system and estimator variables to be explored and weighed at pretrial hearings
when there is some actual evidence of suggestiveness. Second, courts should develop and use
enhanced jury charges to assist jurors in evaluating eyewitness identification evidence. Under
our revised approach, to obtain a pretrial hearing, a defendant has the initial burden of
showing some evidence of suggestiveness that could lead to a mistaken identification. The
State must then offer proof to show that the proffered eyewitness identification is reliable,
accounting for system and estimator variables. However, the court can end the hearing at any
time if it finds from the testimony that defendant’s threshold allegation of suggestiveness is
groundless. The ultimate burden remains on the defendant to prove a very substantial
likelihood of irreparable misidentification. If, after weighing the evidence presented, a court
finds from the totality of the circumstances that defendant has demonstrated a very substantial
likelihood of irreparable misidentification, the court should suppress the identification
evidence. If the evidence is admitted, the court should provide appropriate, tailored jury
instructions. (pp. 103-122)
5. The Court directs that enhanced instructions be given to guide juries about the various
factors that may affect the reliability of an identification in a particular case. Those
instructions are to be included in the court’s comprehensive jury charge at the close of
evidence. In addition, instructions may be given during trial if warranted. Expert testimony
may also be introduced at trial, but only if otherwise appropriate. The Court anticipates,
however, that with enhanced jury instructions, there will be less need for expert testimony. To
help implement this decision, the Court asks the Criminal Practice Committee and the
Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to draft proposed revisions to the current charge
on eyewitness identification and submit them to this Court for review before they are
implemented. (pp. 122-128)
6. Returning to the facts of this case, the investigating officers intervened after Womble, the
eyewitness, informed the lineup administrator that he could not make an identification from
the final two photos. The officers conveyed a message that there was an identification to be
made and they encouraged Womble to make one. The suggestive nature of the officers’
comments entitled defendant to a pretrial hearing, and he received one in which the trial court
applied the Manson/Madison test. The Court now remands to the trial court for an expanded
hearing consistent with the principles outlined in this decision. 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. If Womble’s identification was properly admitted, then
defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. (pp. 128-129)
7. The Court must determine whether the new rule should be applied retroactively.
Applying the relevant factors, the Court determines that today’s ruling will apply to future
cases only, except for defendant Henderson and defendant Cecilia Chen, the subject of a
companion case filed today. As to future cases, today’s ruling will take effect thirty days from
the date this Court approves new model jury charges on eyewitness identification. (pp. 129-
132)
The judgment of the Appellate Division is MODIFIED and AFFIRMED, and the
matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s
opinion.
JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS join
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]