State v. Lazo
209 N.J. 9
| N.J. | 2012Background
- August 5, 2005 Newark robbery; victim Chaleo described one assailant as Hispanic male, 5'9", 150 lbs., white T-shirt, blue jeans, backward baseball cap.
- Detective Valido prepared a six-photo array including an arrest photo of Lazo, using a two-year-old HIDTA photo, after a police sketch was created from the victim’s description.
- Victim identified Lazo from the photo array; the arrest followed; defendant Lazo was charged with conspiracy to rob and robbery; defense offered a sleeping-alibi for the night of the incident.
- Trial evidence centered on the victim’s identification; there was no physical corroboration; detective testified about the array and its similarity to the sketch.
- Appellate Division affirmed; Supreme Court granted certification; ACDL and Attorney General filed amicus briefs addressing the sketch and identification issues.
- Court held the detective’s testimony about why the arrest photo was included in the array violated Branch and prejudiced the defense; remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of arrest photo and detective's comparison | State contends arrest photo relevant to appearance and array composition. | Lazo argues Detective Valido’s testimony improperly vouched and invaded jury function per Branch. | Error; remand for new trial |
| Harmless error vs reversible error for identification testimony | Identification testimony supported by corroborating evidence. | Identification bolstered by detective’s lay opinion violated Branch/Henderson principles. | Not harmless; reversible error; remand |
| Admissibility of the composite sketch and related issues | Composite sketch properly admitted as prior identification under Ginardi. | Sketch creation and use contaminate memory and identification reliability. | Not reached; amici arguments not central to decision |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks | Remarks about convenient alibi witnesses were permissible. | Closing comments implied defense fabrication of alibi. | No reversible error |
| HIDTA network references by witnesses | Neutral description of photo sources acceptable; HIDTA reference may prejudice. | Prejudice from drug-trafficking context should be avoided; neutral sourcing preferred. | Court prescribes neutral sourcing guidance; not dispositive to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338 (2005) (disallows police testimony explaining why a photo was included in an array)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (eyewitness identification concerns; prospective applicability)
- State v. Taplin, 230 N.J. Super. 95 (1988) (arrest photo admissibility requires neutrality)
- State v. Cribb, 281 N.J. Super. 156 (1995) (limits on referring to arrest photos as mug shots)
- Butcher, 557 F.2d 666 (9th Cir. 1977) (lay identification testimony should be used sparingly)
- Beck, 418 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2005) (lay opinion in surveillance photo identifications; helpful depending on familiarity)
- LaPierre, 998 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1993) (surveillance photo identification; limits when no prior contact)
- Carbone, 180 N.J. Super. 95 (Law Div. 1981) (situations permitting lay opinion where eyewitness is unavailable)