State v. Pressley
181 A.3d 1017
N.J.2018Background
- Undercover detective bought two vials of cocaine from Dorian Pressley on April 30, 2013; Pressley gave the detective his phone number and the detective described his clothing.
- A second officer observed the sale from ~20 feet away; a third officer briefly encountered Pressley later but released him to protect the undercover operation.
- Within an hour the undercover detective viewed a single photo of Pressley at headquarters and identified him as the seller.
- Pressley was arrested months later; convicted of third-degree possession and distribution offenses and sentenced to an aggregate 10 years.
- On appeal Pressley argued the single-photo identification was impermissibly suggestive and warranted a pretrial Wade/Henderson hearing; he also claimed prosecutorial misconduct in summation.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it declined to resolve whether Henderson protections fully apply to law-enforcement eyewitnesses, found suppression unlikely given timing and jury instructions, and rejected the prosecutorial-misconduct claim as not plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pretrial Wade/Henderson hearing was required for a single-photo ID by an officer | State: trained officers are "trained observers"; confirming identity need not require an array | Pressley: single-photo showup was impermissibly suggestive; officer ID should be tested like civilian ID | Court declined to decide generally whether Henderson applies to police eyewitnesses; affirmed conviction because ID occurred within an hour, suppression unlikely, and jury received proper ID instructions |
| Whether an officer's identification is a "confirmatory" ID (non-suggestive) | State: ID was confirmation by trained officer | Pressley: detective first met defendant during transaction so it was not a confirmatory ID | Court: identification here was not a confirmatory ID; detective met defendant during sale |
| Whether failure to hold a pretrial ID hearing required reversal | Pressley: lack of hearing deprived him of a fair reliability assessment | State: any suggestiveness was minimal and timing/other factors reduced misidentification risk | Court: even if a hearing would have been preferable, the result would not likely change given prompt ID and other circumstances; affirmed |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct in summation | Pressley: prosecutor misstated law by calling the ID "confirmatory" and otherwise argued improperly | State: summation comments were within latitude; comment about "confirmatory" mischaracterized but harmless | Court: reviewed for plain error, found comments not clearly capable of producing unjust result given overwhelming evidence; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (recognizes right to pretrial hearing on identification procedures)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (upheld single-photo ID but noted photographic array would be preferable)
- State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (adopted reliability-focused framework and best practices for eyewitness ID)
- State v. Madison, 109 N.J. 223 (summarizes federal law on suggestive ID procedures)