PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from convictions for offenses arising from an attack that culminated in the shooting deaths of two juveniles, Naeem Jackson and Joel Ferguson. We affirm.
Shortly before midnight on July 13, 2007, sixteen year old Joseph McKinney was at the corner of Sanford Avenue and Mount Vernon Place in Newark, waiting for a bus with his girlfriend, Aleesha Felton, and her cousin, LaShawnah Harris. A man, later identified as Michael Thompson,
As Felton and Harris fled, Harris called Jackson her boyfriend, and told him McKinney "just got jumped at the bus stop." Jackson and his friend, Joel Ferguson, rode to the corner of Sanford Avenue and Mount Vernon Place on a bicycle. One of the men knocked Jackson and Ferguson off their bicycle, and the five surrounded the two, stomping, kicking, and punching them. Defendant removed a gun from his waistband and shot Jackson and Ferguson, who died as a result of their gunshot wounds.
On July 18, 2007, Detective Keith Sheppard of the Newark Police Department met with Felton and McKinney. McKinney provided an audio statement and a question-and-answer statement to the police.
Patrick Hall observed the shooting from a block away. He called 911 and was at the scene when the police arrived. Detectives Sheppard and James Wright responded to the scene and drove Hall and three teenagers related to his girlfriend to police headquarters. Sheppard interviewed Hall, and Wright interviewed the three teenagers. Hall provided police with a written statement. No photo identifications were attempted at the time.
Based on the identifications made by McKinney, police arrested Thompson and Winkey for aggravated assault on July 26, 2007. Sheppard interviewed Winkey, who provided an audiotaped statement exculpating himself and implicating defendant, Cromwell, and Grate in the assault. Winkey identified defendant as the shooter. On August 6, 2007, police arrested Cromwell and
Grate.
On August 15, 2007, Sheppard met with Hall "to show him a photo array." Hall identified defendant from the photos as the shooter. On August 23, 2007, Hall returned to the police station for a third time and gave a third statement. Hall also identified Winkey as one of the assailants.
Defendant surrendered after arrest warrants were issued for him and Winkey for homicide. On April 18, 2008, a grand jury sitting in Essex County returned an indictment charging defendant with two counts of first-degree murder (counts one and two), in violation of
Winkey pled guilty to second-degree aggravated assault pursuant to a plea agreement in which he agreed to cooperate and give truthful testimony in the trial against the remaining defendants. Defendant, Cromwell, and Grate (collectively, the defendants) proceeded to trial.
At trial, Winkey recanted the statement he gave to police, stating he was not with defendants on the night of the shootings and did not witness the shootings. Following a
The parties stipulated that defendant did not have a permit to carry a handgun. Defendant did not testify and presented no witnesses at trial. At the close of the State's case, the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on count five, which charged conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. The jury convicted defendant of the two counts of murder, and firearm offenses (counts one through four), acquitted him of second-degree aggravated assault, but convicted him of the lesser included offense of simple assault (count six).
Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment on the two first-degree murder charges (counts one and two). Count four was merged into counts one and two. Pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA),
Defendant presents the following arguments in his appeal:
Defendant raises the following additional arguments in his pro se supplemental brief:
After reviewing these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we find that none have any merit.
Defendant first argues that the admission of Winkey's prior inconsistent statement was error because the statement was unreliable, self-serving and uncorroborated. We disagree. A review of the record in light of the applicable legal principles shows that the evidence was properly admitted.
At trial, Winkey recanted his prior statements. He testified he was not with any of the defendants on the night of the shooting and did not witness the murders. At the prosecution's request, the trial judge conducted a
Winkey testified that he was arrested for aggravated assault on July 26, 2007, and brought to police headquarters. He testified the police "whooped [his] ass." He said the officers showed him pictures and asked him to "say he was there, and when [he] didn't want to say he was there, they whooped [his] ass some more[.]" Winkey testified that the tape recording was stopped and started while he was abused. As to defendant, Winkey testified that the officers just told him to "say he was there" but did not tell him to say defendant shot the two victims. Sheppard also testified at the
The trial judge set forth his credibility findings, stating "Detective Sheppard was direct, forthright, and honest." He found Winkey "incredible, because his testimony that he simply made up details to satisfy the detectives defies reason to me, and it seemed ... to be patently false." The trial judge reviewed the factors that favored the reliability of the prior statement and those that militated against such a finding and concluded that the State had proven the reliability of the statement by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
Winkey identified defendant as the shooter not only in his prior statement to police but also in the factual basis he gave under oath to support his guilty plea, which was also admitted into evidence and not subject to admissibility challenges on hearsay grounds. In addition, as the trial judge noted, Winkey's prior statement identifying defendant as the shooter was corroborated by the testimony of the independent eyewitness.
We discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling.
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the out-of-court identification made by Hall and requested a
On cross-examination at trial, Hall testified he had been shown "a bunch of pictures" and when asked to clarify what he meant by a "bunch," Hall stated, "a lot of pictures ... about 20, 30 pictures." He was not asked to sign any of the photos at that time. He said he was later shown the six-photograph array, identified the photo of defendant and signed it on the back. He also agreed that it was "fair to say" that the photo he identified was included among the original "bunch" of photos he was shown.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error in failing to conduct a
As a preliminary matter, we note that the identification procedure and trial in this case were completed before the Supreme Court decided
Therefore, the standard applicable to our review is the two-step test for determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence enunciated in
The Court stressed that the determination to exclude the evidence
Defendants are not automatically entitled to a
Defendant argues that the procedure did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines because police did not document the photo lineup or preserve the photos used. (
The record is insufficient to permit us to determine whether the review of the additional photographs was akin to looking through a mugshot book. The fact that this procedure may have violated the Attorney General Guidelines is not, however, dispositive.
Defendant's remaining arguments explicitly rely upon principles articulated in
Defendant contends that showing Hall a group of twenty to thirty photographs that included defendant's photograph, followed by the six-photo array created the risk of "mugshot exposure" discussed by the Court in
Defendant also relies upon
Even if the
Defendant's arguments thus rest upon alleged violations of the Attorney General Guidelines and principles set forth in
"[R]eliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony."
Factors relevant to an assessment of the reliability of the identification include: (1) the opportunity of the eyewitness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the eyewitness's degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the eyewitness's prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the eyewitness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.
We consider these factors here. Hall testified that he was walking with his girlfriend's daughter and her two cousins on Mount Vernon Place toward a gas station located on the corner of Sanford Avenue and Mount Vernon Place on the evening of the homicide. He was less than a full block away from the bus stop when he noticed a "crowd of kids" beating a "kid on [a] bike." There was a street light directly over where the assault occurred. There were no cars on the street. Hall testified, "I seen everything that was going on. I did." He stepped out into the middle of the street. Hall saw the crowd disperse and then saw the shooter point his gun, saw the flash of gunfire and saw "one kid [fall] by the fire hydrant." He testified that he saw only one person shooting and only one gun. He did not see the second person shot.
Hall provided the police officers with a physical description of the shooter and said he was wearing a black and white striped shirt. He told them he had seen defendant in the area previously, on the basketball courts in the park.
The physical description Hall gave was that the shooter was a "black male" with "medium length hair, ... stocky, medium to dark complexion ... between the age of 17 to early 20's." Sheppard described defendant at the time of his arrest as being 5'7" tall and weighing 150 pounds. He was twenty-one years old and had dreadlocks.
On the photograph identification form Hall signed, he stated he identified photograph # 5 as the person who had been wearing the
The photo display report prepared by Arroyo stated, "The witness was calm. He viewed the photos and positively identified photo # 5 as the person with a black/white shirt who shot the person on the ground."
Hall identified defendant in court as the person he saw pull the trigger that night. He testified that defendant looked different than he did on the night of the shooting. Hall stated he believed that defendant had "dreds" that were "about shoulder length or longer" at the time of the shooting.
Thus, after he moved into the middle of the street, Hall was able to observe the shooting from approximately one-half block away. The events he witnessed were illuminated by a streetlight and unobstructed by any cars on the street. He was able to notice details such as the general appearance of the shooter and his clothing and testified that he saw the flash of gunfire. It is evident from his testimony that he was not a casual observer but rather, aside from calling 911 and fumbling with his phone, the beating and shooting occupied his attention. His description of the shooter is reasonably similar to defendant. Defendant has attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the initial description by noting Hall described the shooter's hair as of medium length and did not mention he had dreadlocks. However, at trial, when Hall was asked if there was any difference in defendant's appearance since the shooting, he noted specifically that defendant had "dreds" on the night of the homicides. Hall's level of certainty was reflected in his statement, "I seen everything that was going on. I did." In addition, the photo display report stated he calmly and positively identified defendant's photo. The approximate one-month delay between the shooting and the photo identification is not so long as to seriously call into question the reliability of the identification.
After evaluating the relevant factors, we are convinced that the evidence fails to show "a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,"
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, in light of the record and the applicable law and find they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion,
Defendant contends the trial judge committed plain error in failing to discharge one juror after she informed the court that her employment had been terminated and in failing to make inquiry of the jurors after the foreperson asked to be relieved of the responsibility to read the verdict in open court.
After the juror advised the court that her employment had been terminated, the judge questioned her as to whether she had been able to listen and concentrate on the evidence up to that point and ascertained that she had not been distracted by her employment situation. The judge then asked her:
The judge asked if she had any questions or concerns regarding her ability to continue to serve and the juror replied she had none. Counsel for defendant did not question juror number two's ability to serve and did not object to her service. It was within the judge's discretion to determine whether or not to excuse the juror.
Defendant also argues that the trial court committed plain error in allowing the jury to select a new foreperson without inquiring as to whether the jury had been tainted. After the trial judge designated juror number one as the foreperson of the jury and advised her that she would announce the verdict, she sent out the following note:
The judge shared the communication with counsel and later stated on the record:
The judge invited counsel to respond but there was no objection placed on the record. The record thus reflects that, after receiving the juror's note, the judge reviewed the note with counsel and all agreed to the procedure followed. There was no abuse of discretion and no plain error here.
It was also a matter within the trial judge's discretion to determine whether or not to exclude evidence that Hall had a prior conviction for aggravated manslaughter.
The record clearly establishes that the trial court considered the severity of the offense, the conviction's bearing on credibility, the lack of intervening convictions, and the passage of time since the offense. We conclude that the decision to exclude the evidence of Hall's conviction on the ground of remoteness was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Affirmed.