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

a-8-08.opn.html
Harper slumped over in his car in a nearby parking lot, where Harper said he
had been shot by two men he did not know.
The next day, the officers confronted Womble about inconsistencies in his
story. Womble claimed that they also threatened to charge him in connection
with the murder. Womble then decided to “come clean.” He admitted that he
lied at first because he did not want to “rat” out anyone and “didn’t want to get
involved” out of fear of retaliation against his elderly father. Womble led the
investigators to Clark, who eventually gave a statement about his involvement
and identified the person who accompanied him as defendant Larry Henderson.
The officers had Womble view a photographic array on January 14, 2003.
That event lies at the heart of this decision and is discussed in greater detail
below. Ultimately, Womble identified defendant from the array, and
Investigator MacNair prepared a warrant for his arrest. Upon arrest, defendant
admitted to the police that he had accompanied Clark to the apartment where
Harper was killed, and heard a gunshot while waiting in the hallway. But
defendant denied witnessing or participating in the shooting.
A grand jury in Camden County returned an indictment charging Henderson
and Clark with the following offenses: first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(1) or (2); second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4);
third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); and
possession of a weapon having been convicted of a prior offense, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-7(a) (Henderson) and -7(b) (Clark).
B. Photo Identification and Wade Hearing
As noted above, Womble reviewed a photo array at the Prosecutor’s Office on
January 14, 2003, and identified defendant as his assailant. The trial court
conducted a pretrial Wade 1 hearing to determine the admissibility of that
identification. Investigator MacNair, Detective Ruiz, and Womble all testified at
the hearing. Cherry Hill Detective Thomas Weber also testified.
Detective Weber conducted the identification procedure because, consistent
with guidelines issued by the Attorney General, he was not a primary
investigator in the case. See Office of the Attorney Gen., N.J. Dep’t of Law and
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]