State v. Chen
208 N.J. 307
N.J.2011Background
- This case addresses whether private, non-governmental suggestive conduct can trigger a pretrial Rule 104 hearing on eyewitness identifications.
- Helen Kim identified Cecilia Chen as her attacker after JC Kim showed her Chen’s photos on her website, with multiple viewings.
- The initial identifications occurred long before trial; the Wade hearing was requested on the eve of trial and denied since no government actor was involved.
- Chen was indicted on multiple counts; trial included Helen’s identification alongside other corroborating evidence.
- Appellate Division remanded for a Rule 104 hearing on identification admissibility; Supreme Court granted cert to review the framework.
- Court adopts a Henderson-based framework: require highly suggestive private conduct to trigger a hearing, assess reliability with system/estimator variables, and burden on defendant to show substantial misidentification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private actor suggestiveness triggers Rule 104 hearing. | State: yes, private suggestiveness warrants scrutiny. | Chen: no hearing unless highly government-like conduct. | Yes, a hearing is required when highly suggestive private conduct could cause misidentification. |
| Framework for evaluating private suggestiveness without police action. | State: adopt Henderson-modified framework for reliability. | Chen: framework should be consistent with rules and case law; hearing warranted. | Adopt Henderson framework with modified threshold for private action cases. |
| Burden at the Rule 104 hearing on misidentification risk. | State: reliability testing may justify admission depending on evidence. | Chen: defendant should prevail if very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification exists. | Defendant must show very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification; if shown, identification excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) (establishes framework for reliability of eyewitness identifications and private suggestiveness)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (reliability as linchpin in admissibility of identifications)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (N.J. 1988) (Manson reliability factors balancing against government interest)
- State v. Michaels, 136 N.J. 299 (N.J. 1994) (Rule 104 hearing to assess reliability of coerive or unduly suggestive statements)
- State v. A.O., 198 N.J. 69 (N.J. 2009) (polygraph evidence reliability; testing stipulated evidence at 104 hearing)