State of New Jersey v. Rodney Armour, 141 A.3d 381

In 2002 Rodney Armour was convicted by a jury of second-degree robbery based principally on two in-court identifications, an Eckerd surveillance video, and a statement to police; he did not testify and offered no alibi.
A usable latent fingerprint was recovered from the outside passenger door of the victim’s car, tested against state AFIS and local prints, and was determined not to match Armour. It was not submitted to IAFIS.
Armour later moved for post-conviction retesting/submission of the unidentified latent fingerprint to expanded AFIS/IAFIS databases, arguing advances in fingerprint science could now identify a third party and justify a new trial.
The trial court denied the motion; Armour appealed, arguing the court erred in refusing retesting and that his prior PCR counsel was ineffective.
The Appellate Division applied the statutory framework of the DNA retesting statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32a) by analogy and focused on whether favorable fingerprint retesting would create a “reasonable probability” of a new trial.
The court concluded that, even if retesting identified a third party, the strength of the eyewitness, video, and other evidence and Armour’s lack of an alibi meant retesting would not create a reasonable probability of a new trial, and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should order submission/retesting of an unidentified latent fingerprint to AFIS/IAFIS	State: denial proper because retesting would not produce a result that, even if favorable, would create a reasonable probability of a new trial given the trial record	Armour: expanded AFIS/IAFIS and advances in fingerprint science could identify a third party whose identification would likely change the verdict	Court: applied DNA-retesting framework; although testable and material, even a favorable match to a third party would not raise a reasonable probability of a new trial given strong eyewitness/video evidence and no alibi; motion denied
Whether Armour’s claim of ineffective assistance of PCR counsel in prior proceedings justified relief now	State: such claims require PCR process and evidentiary development outside the record	Armour: PCR counsel (PFF) was a sham and provided ineffective assistance warranting remedy now	Court: deferred ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claims to a new PCR petition where factual development outside the record can occur

State v. Reldan, 373 N.J. Super. 396 (App. Div. 2004) (DNA-retesting standard applies broadly; strength of proof can bar compelled testing when no alibi)
State v. Peterson, 364 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2003) (favorable DNA results that both exculpate defendant and implicate another would likely change verdict)
State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (1981) (standards for newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (framework on eyewitness identification reliability)
State v. Velez, 329 N.J. Super. 128 (App. Div. 2000) (ordering DNA testing in a PCR context; noted objective of avoiding wrongful conviction)