STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JASON FARLEY (2010)

This matter returns to us following our opinion of November 20, 2009, remanding to the trial court certain issues relating to the victim's identification of defendant, in light of the supervening legal principles of identification set forth in our opinion in State v. Henderson, 397 N.J.Super. 398, 415 (App.Div.), certif. granted, 195 N.J. 521 (2008).¹  Among other things, Henderson instructs trial courts to apply a rebuttable “presumption of impermissible suggestiveness” in situations where the identification procedures used by the police deviate from the Attorney General's Guidelines (“Guidelines”).  Ibid.

On remand, the trial court conducted a supplemental evidentiary hearing at which the victim in this case, J.S., testified.   Following that hearing, the remand judge ² issued a written opinion, concluding that the victim's identification of defendant had been properly admitted at trial.

The remand judge noted that the Guidelines do not specifically establish protocols for so-called “show up” identifications.   Nevertheless, the remand judge acknowledged certain general principles contained in the Guidelines, including the need for the police to “avoid saying anything to the witness that may influence the witness' selection.”   In light of that principle, the remand judge concluded that the police impermissibly deviated from the Guidelines in this case by informing the victim, while driving her to defendant's residence, that canines had tracked his scent from her residence to his own abode.   Consequently, the judge concluded, consistent with Henderson, that the “show up” identification of defendant at his house was overly suggestive, even though it was not a “purposeful” departure from the Guidelines.

However, turning to the second prong of the legal test for admissibility-- reliability of the identification--the remand judge was convinced that the victim's identification of defendant was nonetheless “sufficiently reliable and was properly submitted for the consideration of the jury.”   See State v. Romero, 191 N.J. 59, 76 (2007) (articulating the two-pronged legal test for admissibility of out-of-court identifications).   In particular, the remand judge noted the short time between the victim's observation of defendant at her home and the ensuing “show up,” her consistent “unprompted description of the defendant to the police” when they first interviewed her, and the overall credibility of the victim's explanation of how she became “very sure” of the perpetrator's identity after first viewing his photograph on a computer screen and thereafter seeing him in person.

The remand judge also was impressed that the victim was “a particularly credible witness,” who “readily acknowledged when she could not recall a fact,” “did not attempt to embellish or invent when confronted with questions to which she did not have answers,” and provided answers “confidently” in a manner that “appeared to come from her own memory.”

We have duly considered the post-remand supplemental briefs of the parties, in which defendant claims that the remand judge erred in reaffirming the admissibility of the victim's identification, and in which the State reciprocally urges that we sustain the remand judge's findings.   Having done so, we affirm the ruling of the remand judge, substantially for the cogent reasons thoughtfully articulated in the February 16, 2010 written opinion of Judge Jamie S. Perri, the remand judge.   Consequently, we affirm defendant's conviction in all respects.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. We note that the Supreme Court in Henderson remanded the various policy issues respecting the admissibility and reliability of eyewitness identifications to a Special Master.   State v. Henderson, N.J. Supreme Court Order No. A-8-05 (Feb. 26, 2009) (remanding the matter to the trial court for a plenary hearing “to consider and decide whether the assumptions and other factors reflected in the two-part Manson /Madison test, as well as the five factors outlined in those cases to determine reliability remain valid and appropriate in light of recent scientific and other evidence”).   As of the time of this opinion, the Special Master has issued his report with various recommendations, but the Supreme Court has not completed its review of the report.   See Report of the Special Master, June 18, 2010, available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ pressrel/HENDERSONF̈INAL0̈BRIEF0̈.PDF(̈00621142).PDF..  FN1. We note that the Supreme Court in Henderson remanded the various policy issues respecting the admissibility and reliability of eyewitness identifications to a Special Master.   State v. Henderson, N.J. Supreme Court Order No. A-8-05 (Feb. 26, 2009) (remanding the matter to the trial court for a plenary hearing “to consider and decide whether the assumptions and other factors reflected in the two-part Manson /Madison test, as well as the five factors outlined in those cases to determine reliability remain valid and appropriate in light of recent scientific and other evidence”).   As of the time of this opinion, the Special Master has issued his report with various recommendations, but the Supreme Court has not completed its review of the report.   See Report of the Special Master, June 18, 2010, available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ pressrel/HENDERSONF̈INAL0̈BRIEF0̈.PDF(̈00621142).PDF.

FN2. Pursuant to our instructions, the judge who conducted the remand hearing was a different judge than the original trial judge who had found the victim's identification of defendant admissible under then-extant law..  FN2. Pursuant to our instructions, the judge who conducted the remand hearing was a different judge than the original trial judge who had found the victim's identification of defendant admissible under then-extant law.

PER CURIAM