SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3302

- 18T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY , P laintiff

- Respondent ,

v. THOMAS REED , a/k/a THOMAS REID, THOMAS RIED AN D DAVID RED,
Defendant

- Appellan t

.

_______________________ __

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 No s
. 16

- 03

- 0596 a nd 16

- 06

- 1161. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Michael Timothy Denn y , Assistant Deputy Public Defender, o f counsel and o n 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not " constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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 analyze d 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 re considered the evidence elicited at the earlier heari ng , 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 second

degree 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 hi m 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 i ndictments. [ 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 i ssue on appeal:

POINT I : THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMITTNG THE OUT

- OF

- COURT IDENTIFICATION BECAUSE IT WAS A SHOWUP CONDUCT E D IN AN UNDULY SUGGESTIVE MANNER, AND BECAUSE THE WITNESS DID NOT RECEIVE AN Y 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 y ou 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
26 1 , 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.