State v. Joseph
426 N.J. Super. 204
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Renard Joseph was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree armed robbery, one count of second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, and one count of third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon; he received concurrent eighteen-year armed robbery terms with NERA, plus concurrent five-year terms for weapons offenses, and merger adjustments.
- The robberies occurred around 9:40 a.m. on December 28, 2007 at a Newark beauty salon, with three female victims who identified defendant as the robber.
- Police used a computer-based photo retrieval (HIDA) system to generate photographic arrays; Munroe and Hernandez independently identified defendant from the system after viewing hundreds of photos.
- Reed also identified defendant, and the police arrested him at his father’s home later that day; Reed followed and confirmed the identification at the scene.
- Defendant’s challenge centered on the admissibility of identifications, the reliability of the photo system, record-keeping of identifications, possible suggestiveness, a cross-racial identification instruction issue, and the exclusion of defense expert testimony; the case was remanded for resentencing to address merger/unmerger of offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability foundation of the photo retrieval system | State: system reliably identifies suspects; no expert needed | Joseph: reliability not established; expert needed | Rejected; system deemed reliable without expert testimony |
| Record-keeping of out-of-court identifications | State: failure to preserve arrays not fatal under Delgado/recording standards | Joseph: failure to record/import records prejudices defense | Rejected; not fatal, given disclosure and Wade testimony |
| Impermissible suggestiveness of identifications | State: identifications were reliable given independent descriptions and lighting | Joseph: identifications impermissibly suggestive | Resolved in favor of State; two-prong Manson/Madison test met and identifications were reliable |
| Cross-racial identification instruction | State: no cross-racial instruction required given facts | Joseph: instruction should have been given | No error; Hernandez identified as Hispanic of color and corroboration existed; Romero instruction given |
| Admissibility of defense expert testimony | State: expert not needed; common-sense approach appropriate | Joseph: expert could assist | No error; expert barred, but not needed; remand for resentencing unrelated to this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) (revised eyewitness identification standard (applies to future cases))
- State v. Janowski, 375 N.J. Super. 1 (App.Div. 2005) (photographic database reliability; mug shot-like database viewed by witnesses)
- State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (N.J. 1997) (reliability of photo databases acceptable without expert testimony)
- State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (N.J. 1984) (expert testimony limits and reliance on common knowledge)
- State v. Earle, 60 N.J. 550 (N.J. 1972) (recording of identification procedures encouraged where feasible)
- State v. Ruffin, 371 N.J. Super. 371 (App.Div. 2004) (mug shot books need not be preserved when not shown to subvert rights)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (N.J. 1988) (two-prong test for reliability of identifications)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Supreme Ct. 1977) (reliability factors for eyewitness identifications)
- Romero, 191 N.J. 59 (N.J. 2007) (instruction adequacy for out-of-court identifications)
- Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112 (N.J. 1999) (cross-racial identification considerations)
- Valentine, 345 N.J. Super. 490 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (Hispanic identity as ethnic, not racial; cross-ethnic instruction considerations)