STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RALPH BAKERÂ (02-10-1265, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE, AND Â 02-10-1239, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-3867-05T4/A-3602-13T4/A-3603-13T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- Ralph Baker was convicted in separate trials: Union County (2004) for theft and unlawful possession arising from a July 16, 2002 arrest (mask, bag, gun recovered) and Middlesex County (2005) for two Burger King robberies (July 10, 2002). Items seized in Union County (mask, bag, gun, gloves) were used in the Middlesex trial to link Baker to the Burger King robberies.
- Eyewitness Michelle Krigger had a close, five-minute view of the Burger King robber on July 10 and identified Baker from a photo array nine days later and at trial; a computer composite prepared the day after the robbery also resembled Baker.
- After Baker's arrest, DNA testing of the ski mask later showed DNA on the inside matching a different individual (a suspect in an unrelated July 2, 2002 Hudson County masked robbery) and excluded Baker for the inside sample; the outside sample did not exclude Baker.
- Baker sought suppression of Krigger’s identification (arguing suggestive photo procedures) and later moved for new trials in both counties based on newly discovered DNA evidence and alleged Brady discovery problems; those motions were denied and appeals followed.
- The Appellate Division (1) affirmed most convictions but vacated the certain-persons conviction in Union County earlier; (2) now affirms identification ruling, vacates and remands the Middlesex extended-term life sentence for resentencing under State v. Pierce, and vacates & remands denial of new-trial motions in both counties to allow live evidentiary hearings on the DNA results (including expert testimony). Brady claim re: police teletype was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of out-of-court ID (photo array) | Photo identification was reliable; officer’s procedure not unduly suggestive | Photo array and procedure violated AG Guidelines and was impermissibly suggestive, risking misidentification | Court upheld admission: judge’s credibility findings and Manson/Madison reliability factors supported admitting Krigger’s ID; procedural departures from AG Guidelines did not mandate exclusion |
| Extended-term life sentence (Middlesex Count Two) | Prosecutor argued an extended-range sentence up to life was appropriate (told court range 20–life) | Baker argued sentence was excessive and relied on double-counting prior convictions | Vacated and remanded for resentencing under State v. Pierce (extended-term range and aggravating/mitigating reconsideration) |
| Brady/discovery re: teletype referencing July 2 robbery (Union County) | State argued teletype was disclosed or immaterial; attendant unavailable | Baker argued nondisclosure was material and could have affected trial strategy | Denial of new trial affirmed: teletype statements were hearsay, attendant unavailable to testify, and defendant failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Newly discovered DNA evidence (mask) | State argued DNA proffer was inconclusive and would not likely change verdicts given eyewitness IDs and other evidence | Baker argued DNA excluded him (inside mask) and implicated another person—material and likely to create reasonable doubt, warranting new trials | Vacated denials and remanded: court found DNA proffer met materiality and timeliness thresholds but ordered live evidentiary hearings with DNA expert testimony in both counties to assess probable effect on verdicts |
Key Cases Cited
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (two-prong test: impermissible suggestiveness and reliability governs admissibility of identification)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence: reasonable probability of different result)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (1988) (adopted Manson for New Jersey identifications)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (revised ID-framework for future cases and treated AG Guidelines as best practices, not per se exclusionary)
- State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006) (clarified extended-term sentencing range and remand requirement for resentencing)
- State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (1981) (three-prong newly discovered evidence test for new trial)
- State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171 (2004) (application of the newly discovered evidence standard and impact on jury verdict)