SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3302-18T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS REED, a/k/a

THOMAS REID, THOMAS

RIED AND DAVID RED,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted March 11, 2020 – Decided March 25, 2020

Before Judges Koblitz and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment Nos. 

16-03-0596 and 16-06-1161.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Michael Timothy Denny, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (William P. Cooper-Daub, Deputy 

Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3302-18T3

PER CURIAM

Defendant Thomas Reed appeals from the March 25, 2019 order denying 

his motion to suppress an out-of-court showup identification. The order was

entered after the judge analyzed the facts under State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 

208 (2011), pursuant to our remand. See State v. Reed, No. A-5048-16 (App. 

Div. Jan. 15, 2019) (slip op. at 3-6). The same judge who tried the case 

originally carefully reconsidered the evidence elicited at the earlier hearing,

applying the "system and estimator variables" required by Henderson, 208 N.J. 

at 288-289. We now affirm.

As we stated in our earlier opinion:

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of seconddegree robbery, an attempted theft by threat, N.J.S.A. 

2C:15-1(a)(1), third-degree possession of drugs, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), second-degree witness 

tampering, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(d), and the disorderly 

persons offense of hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 

2C:29-3(b)(1). On May 12, 2017, the court sentenced 

him to an aggregate term of twenty years, with twelve 

years and nine months of parole ineligibility pursuant 

to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-

7.2. He received concurrent terms on three unrelated 

convictions stemming from three additional 

indictments.

[Reed, slip op. at 2 (footnote omitted).]
3

A-3302-18T3

The victim of the attempted robbery identified defendant shortly after the 

incident at a showup, when the victim was in a police car and defendant was in 

handcuffs. Defendant raises the following issue on appeal:

POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY 

ADMITTNG THE OUT-OF-COURT 

IDENTIFICATION BECAUSE IT WAS A SHOWUP 

CONDUCTED IN AN UNDULY SUGGESTIVE 

MANNER, AND BECAUSE THE WITNESS DID 

NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS 

DESIGNED TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY.

The court found, based on the transcript of the police officer's testimony,

that the victim was told prior to the showup "that someone was stopped matching 

the description that he gave, but that the person may or may not be the 

perpetrator." The officer testified:

Q: Can you please generally [describe] what a showup 

is?

A: When you advise the victim that someone is stopped, 

matching the description that he gave, but he needs to 

know that he may or may not be the person involved in 

the incident.

Q: Did you explain to [the victim] what you've 

explained to us?

A: Yes.
4

A-3302-18T3

Later the officer testified he had no discussion with the victim about the 

identification in the patrol car. We defer to the court's factfinding in sorting out 

this apparent inconsistency. State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39, 44 (2011).

Although a showup is "inherently suggestive," Henderson, 208 N.J. at

261, it is not per se impermissible evidence. Having reviewed the judge's 

detailed analysis placed on the record on March 1, 2019, we now affirm

substantially for the cogent reasons expressed by the trial court.

Affirmed.