02.05.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

a-8-08.opn.html<br />

perpetrator when he allegedly observed <strong>the</strong><br />

crime being committed; third, <strong>the</strong> accuracy of<br />

any prior description of <strong>the</strong> perpetrator given<br />

[b]y Womble; fourth, you should consider <strong>the</strong><br />

fact that in Womble’s sworn taped statement of<br />

January 11th, 2003 to <strong>the</strong> police . . ., Womble did<br />

not identify anyone as <strong>the</strong> person or persons<br />

involved in <strong>the</strong> shooting of Rodney Harper . . . .<br />

Next, you should consider <strong>the</strong> degree of<br />

certainty, if any, expressed by Womble in<br />

making <strong>the</strong> identification. . . . 3<br />

You should also consider <strong>the</strong> length of time<br />

between Womble’s observation of <strong>the</strong> alleged<br />

offense <strong>and</strong> his identification . . . . You should<br />

consider any discrepancies or inconsistencies<br />

between identifications . . . .<br />

Next, <strong>the</strong> circumstances under which any outof-court<br />

identification was made including in<br />

this case <strong>the</strong> evidence that during <strong>the</strong> showing to<br />

him of eight photos by Detective Weber he did<br />

not identify Larry <strong>Henderson</strong> when he first<br />

looked at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> later identified Larry<br />

<strong>Henderson</strong> from one of those photos.<br />

. . . . You may also consider any o<strong>the</strong>r factor<br />

based on <strong>the</strong> evidence or lack of evidence in <strong>the</strong><br />

case which you consider relevant to your<br />

determination whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> identification made<br />

by Womble is reliable or not.<br />

Defendant did not object to <strong>the</strong> charge or ask for any additional instructions<br />

related to <strong>the</strong> identification evidence presented at trial.<br />

On July 20, 2004, <strong>the</strong> jury acquitted defendant of murder <strong>and</strong> aggravated<br />

manslaughter, <strong>and</strong> convicted him of reckless manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-<br />

4(b)(1), aggravated assault, <strong>and</strong> two weapons charges. In a bifurcated trial <strong>the</strong><br />

next day, <strong>the</strong> jury convicted defendant of <strong>the</strong> remaining firearms offense:<br />

possession by a previously convicted person. The court sentenced him to an<br />

aggregate eleven-year term of imprisonment, with a period of parole<br />

ineligibility of almost six years under <strong>the</strong> No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-<br />

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-8-08.opn.html[4/15/2013 6:04:23 PM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!