SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the 

convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the 

interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)

State v. Jarrett Parker (A-67-11) (068966)

Argued November 28, 2013 -- Decided January 15, 2014

RODRÍGUEZ, P.J.A.D. (temporarily assigned), writing for a unanimous Court.

In this appeal, the Court considers the application of N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 to the introduction of 

evidence regarding a defendant’s use of aliases in connection with two prior arrests that led to convictions.

On the evening of August 6, 2008, Catrell Robinson picked up his friend, Sharon, her sixteen-year-old 

sister, S.C., and Sharon’s two-year-old daughter, M.A, to take them to the laundromat. Sharon placed M.A. in the 

back seat of Robinson’s still-running Honda Accord. S.C. sat in the driver’s seat and watched as Sharon and 

Robinson loaded laundry bags into the car. A man later identified as defendant Jarrett Parker walked by and 

initiated a verbal altercation with Robinson, culminating in a fistfight. A group of men who knew Parker rushed to 

his aid. Robinson managed to escape and ran a short distance away, but the men caught up to him, knocked him 

down, and kicked him. Sharon ran to help Robinson as Parker walked toward the Accord. Parker forced S.C. out of 

the driver’s seat. Sharon and S.C. screamed that M.A. was still in the back, but Parker drove off. The car crossed a 

street, jumped the curb, and crashed through a fence into a field, ultimately coming to rest on a mound of dirt. 

Parker got out of the car and ran off. M.A. remained in the back seat and suffered no serious injuries. Parker denied 

taking the car. 

At trial, the court ruled that the State could cross-examine Parker as to the number of counts and sentences 

imposed in two prior convictions, but could not reference the specific charges. Parker requested that the State be 

prohibited from referring to the aliases listed on the judgments of conviction. The State countered that Parker’s 

aliases were relevant to his credibility. The court, explaining that certified court judgments are admissible,

permitted the State to question Parker about his aliases because they were included in the judgments of conviction. 

During cross-examination, after establishing that Parker had previously lied to the police about his name when it

benefited him to do so, the prosecutor asked Parker whether it also would benefit him to lie to the police about the 

carjacking. During summation, the State asserted that, since Parker would lie about his own name, he also would lie 

about taking the car and whether he knew M.A. was in the back seat. The State told the jury, “[y]ou can believe the 

three witnesses from the State . . . or you can accept the word of a man who’s lied about his own name.” Parker 

was found guilty of first-degree carjacking, but acquitted of first-degree kidnapping and third-degree endangering 

the welfare of a child. He was sentenced to a twenty-year prison term subject to an eighty-five percent parole 

ineligibility period and a five-year period of parole supervision.

Parker appealed, contending in part that the prosecutor’s summation and references to his aliases for 

impeachment purposes violated N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 and deprived him of a fair trial. The Appellate Division 

affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that Parker was not prejudiced because his use of aliases did not 

imply that he belonged to a criminal class. The Court granted certification. 209 N.J. 99 (2012).

HELD: In accordance with N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608, an alias which appears on a defendant’s prior judgment of 

conviction may not be used for impeachment purposes in a future trial unless the alias was the basis for the prior 

conviction. Thus, the State’s use of Parker’s aliases to demonstrate his character for untruthfulness constituted error 

warranting reversal since the aliases were not the subject of his prior convictions.

1. N.J.R.E. 607 permits the introduction of extrinsic evidence affecting a witness credibility regardless of whether 

that evidence is relevant to any other issue in the case. Restrictions on the types of extrinsic evidence which may be 

introduced for impeachment purposes are set forth in N.J.R.E. 405 and 608. N.J.R.E. 405 generally provides that a 

witness’ character may be proven by reputation evidence, evidence of opinion, or evidence of prior criminal 

convictions. It cannot be proven by specific instances of conduct unless that conduct was the subject of a prior 
2

conviction. N.J.R.E. 608 governs the methods for proving a witness character for truthfulness or untruthfulness,

restricting the permissible methods to those set forth in N.J.R.E. 405 and also expressly excluding the use of specific 

instances of conduct that are not the subject of a conviction. New Jersey case law has established that judgments of 

conviction may be used to prove the existence of a prior conviction. A witness may be questioned regarding all 

matters that would normally appear on the judgment with certain key exceptions, including probation violations and 

criminal charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. With respect to the use of aliases, in State v. 

Salaam, 225 N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 609 (1988), the Appellate Division noted that the 

main objection to revealing a false name in a criminal prosecution is the inherent implication that the defendant 

belongs to a criminal class. Thus, the court found that some tangible form of prejudice must be demonstrated for 

reference to a false name to constitute grounds for reversal. (pp. 12-16)

2. Here, the outcome of the trial hinged almost entirely on witness credibility. Under N.J.R.E. 609, the State could 

have impeached Parker’s credibility with his prior judgments of conviction without drawing attention to his aliases. 

Instead, the State focused on Parker’s provision of false names to police officers when arrested. Because this 

conduct was not the subject of his prior criminal convictions, introduction of the false-name evidence was 

inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608. In contrast to Salaam, where references to the defendant’s false names 

were brief and the names were not used to make a substantive point or impeach credibility, the State intentionally 

used Parker’s false names to demonstrate that his testimony should not be believed. (pp. 16-18)

3. In accordance with the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, the general principle is that extrinsic evidence may be 

used to impeach a witness testimony, N.J.R.E. 607, but only evidence of opinion, reputation, or a prior conviction 

may be used to attack a witness character for truthfulness. N.J.R.E. 608; N.J.R.E. 609. The evidence of Parker’s 

use of false names was not provided by a third party who knew him and so does not qualify as opinion or reputation 

evidence. Although N.J.R.E. 607 alone appears to permit the State’s use of Parker’s false names for impeachment 

purposes, N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 prohibit such use unless the false names resulted in a conviction. Moreover, the 

State’s use of Parker’s false names does not qualify as evidence of a “witness’ conviction of a crime” under N.J.R.E.

609. Only the conviction, not ancillary events such as provision of an alias to police, may be used for impeachment 

purposes. Finally, the mere inclusion of information on a judgment of conviction does not automatically entitle a 

prosecutor to use it for impeachment purposes. (pp. 19-22)

4. Here, admission of the false names evidence was error. Because the outcome of the trial depended on the jury’s 

credibility assessments, and the State’s primary attack on Parker’s credibility was based on improperly admitted 

character evidence and closing arguments premised on such evidence, the error was not harmless. Therefore,

Parker’s conviction must be reversed. (pp. 22-23)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Law 

Division for a new trial.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER; JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, and PATTERSON; and JUDGE 

CUFF (temporarily assigned) join in JUDGE RODRÍGUEZ’s opinion.

 
1

 

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

A-67 September Term 2011

068966

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JARRETT PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Argued November 28, 2012 – Decided January 15, 2014

On certification to the Superior Court, 

Appellate Division.

Alyssa A. Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public 

Defender, argued the cause for appellant 

(Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, 

attorney).

Stephen A. Pogany, Special Deputy Attorney 

General, Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued 

the cause for respondent (Carolyn A. Murray, 

Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; 

Mr. Pogany and Sara A. Friedman, Special 

Deputy Attorney General, Acting Assistant 

Prosecutor, on the briefs).

Teresa A. Blair, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney 

General of New Jersey (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, 

Attorney General, attorney).

JUDGE RODRÍGUEZ (temporarily assigned) delivered the 

opinion of the Court.

N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 strictly prohibit the introduction 

of specific instances of misconduct that were not the subject of 
2

a criminal conviction for the sole purpose of impeaching a 

witness’ credibility. In this criminal appeal, the conviction 

is challenged on the grounds that, over defendant’s objection,

the judge permitted the State to introduce evidence that 

defendant used false names, pseudonyms, or aliases when arrested 

for prior offenses. Although these prior offenses ended in 

convictions, defendant was never charged and, therefore, never 

convicted of these specific instances of giving false 

information to the police. This was error. The false-name 

evidence was not admissible because it was evidence of two 

specific instances of conduct, which were not the subject of a 

conviction. Although the false names were shown in the 

judgments of conviction for other offenses, the information 

itself was not admissible pursuant to our caselaw and rules of 

evidence. 

Defendant Jarrett Parker challenges his conviction for 

first-degree carjacking, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2, on the grounds that 

the trial judge erroneously permitted the assistant prosecutor

to cross-examine him regarding his use of aliases or false names 

in connection with two prior arrests that led to convictions. 

Defendant also argues that the assistant prosecutor suggested to 

the jury in summation that defendant’s testimony was not 

credible due to the use of these false names in the past.
3

We conclude that the State’s introduction of evidence that 

defendant used false names when arrested for prior unrelated 

offenses, combined with the assistant prosecutor’s summation 

argument that defendant’s testimony should not be believed for 

that reason, violates the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, 

specifically N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608, as well as New Jersey 

caselaw. It makes no difference that the assistant prosecutor 

found the false-names information from certified copies of 

defendant’s prior judgments of conviction. The information 

presented to the jury for impeachment purposes, that defendant 

allegedly lied to police about his actual name, is strictly 

prohibited by N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 because defendant was not 

convicted of lying to the police. The State’s violation of 

these rules of evidence warrants reversal of defendant’s 

convictions and a remand for a new trial.

I.

This is a summary of the evidence presented at defendant’s 

trial for first-degree carjacking of a Honda Accord while a twoyear-old child, M.A., was in the back seat. We identify M.A.’s 

mother by the pseudonym “Sharon” in order to keep the child’s 

identity private. 

Late in the evening on August 6, 2008, Catrell Robinson

drove to Union Avenue in Irvington in order to pick up his

friend, Sharon, to take her to a laundromat. Sharon had several 
4

laundry bags and was accompanied by her sixteen-year-old sister, 

S.C. M.A. also came along. Robinson helped Sharon load the 

bags into his four-door 2006 Honda Accord. Sharon placed M.A. 

in the rear of the Accord behind the driver’s seat while she and 

Robinson loaded the bags. The child was not secured in a car 

seat. S.C. climbed into the driver’s seat and watched as 

Robinson and Sharon loaded the Accord. The rear passenger door 

was open and the car’s engine was running.

A man, later identified as defendant, walked past Robinson. 

The two men stared at each other. Defendant turned around and 

asked Robinson, “why you looking at me like that for?” Robinson

replied, “go ahead, man, nobody was looking at you.” An 

exchange of words followed, which culminated in a fistfight

between the men.

A group of six or more men, who knew defendant, rounded a 

nearby street corner and rushed to defendant’s aid. One of the 

men in that group attempted to hold Robinson by the waist. 

Robinson shook the man off and ran a short distance down the 

street. The other men, including defendant, caught up to 

Robinson, knocked him to the ground, then kicked and stomped

him. 

According to Sharon, when she saw the group of men knock 

Robinson to the ground, she started running in their direction 

to help him. She then saw defendant walking towards the Accord. 
5

M.A. was still in the backseat, and S.C. was in the driver’s 

seat facing backwards. The rear passenger door was still open. 

Defendant then forced S.C. out of the driver’s seat of the 

Accord and sat in it. Sharon and S.C. screamed at defendant, 

yelling that the two-year-old girl was still in the back seat.

Defendant drove off in the Accord, crossed Union Avenue, 

jumped a curb, and crashed through a fence onto a grassy field. 

Ultimately, the Accord got stuck on a mound of dirt and came to 

a stop. Defendant exited the Accord and ran off toward 

Chancellor Avenue. Robinson, Sharon, and her sister approached 

the Accord and saw that some of the laundry bags had flown out 

of the open rear passenger door. M.A., however, was still 

sitting in the back seat. She did not sustain serious injuries.

The following evening, S.C. selected defendant’s photograph 

from an array prepared by investigating Irvington police 

officers. Two days later, Sharon did the same. Although

Robinson gave a description of the carjacker to the police, he 

was not able to make a photographic identification. 

After the State rested its case, the assistant prosecutor

informed the judge that the State planned to cross-examine 

defendant regarding two prior convictions. The judge ruled that 

the State would be allowed to “mention the number of counts and 

the sentence imposed” but not the specific charges involved in 

the prior convictions. Defendant elected to testify and at 
6

trial, his counsel requested that no reference be made to the 

false names listed on the judgments of conviction for those 

offenses. In response, the prosecutor asserted that

“defendant’s use of [false names] would also go towards his 

credibility or lack thereof. . . . The Court rule allows 

everything within the four corners of the [judgment of 

conviction] to be used.” 

The judge agreed, indicating that the false names were 

stated in certified court judgments, which are admissible. 

Therefore, the judge allowed the assistant prosecutor to 

question defendant about his prior use of different names as 

reflected in the judgments.

Defendant testified and admitted that he was at the scene 

and chased Robinson. According to defendant, he was looking for 

his cell phone, which he had lost in the vicinity. After his 

friends arrived, defendant chased Robinson and kicked Robinson

for several minutes. Defendant left the scene immediately after 

Robinson lost consciousness. Defendant did not see anyone enter 

the Accord during the fight. He walked away and left the area 

on foot. He denied taking the Accord.

 On cross-examination, the assistant prosecutor asked 

defendant about his prior convictions, which led to the 

following exchange:
7

[Assistant Prosecutor]: What’s your real 

name?

[Defendant]: Jarrett Parker.

. . . 

Q: Okay. I’m gonna show you what’s marked 

S-11. You ever go by the name Jarrod Parks?

A: No.

Q: You didn’t use Jarrod Parks?

A: No. The cops -- when I was in the 

precinct, the cops misspelled my name. I 

don’t go by Jarrod Parks.

. . . 

Q: Do you know who Dashon Price is?

A: Yes.

Q: Who’s that?

A: That’s a friend.

Q: Oh. It’s not you?

A: No, that’s not me.

Q: I’m showing you what’s marked S-12 for 

identification. You went through with 

counsel; you’ve been convicted of a crime 

before. Correct?

A: Yes.

. . . 

Q: And you were sentenced under the name 

Jarrett Parker a/k/a Dashon Price. Is that 

correct?

A: Yes.
8

Q: How’d that -- how did you end up 

getting a conviction under your friend’s 

name?

A: I don’t know how they --

Q: Cops make another mistake?

A: That was -- that conviction right 

there? I don’t know how they said that was 

my a/k/a. If anything, they was supposed to 

have the Jarrod Parks with that, if 

anything.

Q: Someone else’s mistake again. Right?

A: I didn’t say it was mistaken, I 

don’t know where they got that from.

Q: Well, did you lie about your name if it 

would benefit you?

A: Yeah. I lie about the Dashon 

Price before. That’s my friend’s name, 

that’s what I said.

Q: So you have used another name?

A: Yeah.

Q: And you used it because it would 

benefit you in some way?

A: Benefit me?

Q: Well, you would say you’re Dashon, 

obviously, because that would help you. 

Right?

A: Yes.

Q: Some situation where being Dashon was 

better than being Jarrett Parker. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: So you lied for a benefit. Right?
9

A: Yes.

Q: You’re telling this jury that you did 

not get in a car -- Catrell Robinson’s car 

on August 6th, 2008. Right?

A: Yes.

Q: That would benefit you to lie to them 

and say I didn’t get in that car. Right?

A: No.

During summation, the assistant prosecutor later made the 

following argument to the jury:

Now, Jarrett Parker will lie about his own 

name. He was confronted with that. One of 

‘em was a mistake, he says, but the other 

one? Dashon Price? That’s his friend’s 

name and ‘yeah, I’ve used it.’ And he even 

admits ‘I used it ‘cause it benefited me.’ 

I submit, he lied to you when he told you I 

didn’t take that car. I didn’t crash that 

car. I didn’t see a baby in the back seat 

because that benefited him, just as much as 

it did when he lied about his own name. 

. . . 

So, you have a choice in this case. You can 

believe the three witnesses from the State . 

. . or you can accept the word of a man 

who’s lied about his own name . . . . 

II.

The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree carjacking, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2a(1), but acquitted him of first-degree 

kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1b(1), and third-degree endangering 

the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4A. The judge imposed a 
10

twenty-year term subject to a period of parole ineligibility set 

by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and a five-year 

term of parole supervision upon release. This sentence was to 

run concurrent to a five-year term that defendant was then 

serving for a parole violation.

Defendant appealed, contending, among other challenges, 

that the assistant prosecutor’s references to the false names

for impeachment purposes violated N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608. 

Defendant also contends that the assistant prosecutor’s argument 

on summation was improper. Both of these actions by the State 

resulted in prejudice to him, thereby depriving him of a fair 

trial. 

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and 

sentence, concluding that the use of false names did not imply 

that defendant belonged to a criminal class and, therefore, 

defendant was not prejudiced by the references. The panel 

rejected defendant’s other arguments. We granted certification, 

State v. Parker, 209 N.J. 99 (2012), and the Attorney General’s 

request to participate as amicus curiae.

III.

Defendant contends that the judge erred by permitting the 

assistant prosecutor to attack his credibility by crossexamining him on his past use of false names, and that those 

references deprived him of a fair trial. Specifically, 
11

defendant argues that the assistant prosecutor’s use of false 

name evidence was contrary to State v. Salaam, 225 N.J. Super.

66 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 609 (1988), the 

principal New Jersey case concerning the introduction of 

evidence of false names used by a defendant in the past. 

Defendant argues that Salaam held that the past use of a false 

name by a defendant should be kept from the jury unless it is 

relevant for some purpose. Defendant also argues that the 

assistant prosecutor’s introduction of defendant’s false names

in cross-examination violated N.J.R.E. 608, which provides that 

a witness cannot be impeached by specific instances of 

untruthfulness that were not the subject of a conviction.

The State argues that the judge properly allowed the 

assistant prosecutor to impeach defendant’s credibility on 

cross-examination by referencing defendant’s use of false names. 

The State also argues that defendant’s reliance on N.J.R.E. 405 

and 608 is misplaced because the assistant prosecutor did not 

refer to defendant’s use of false names in an attempt to 

establish defendant’s character for untruthfulness or to show a 

specific instance of bad conduct. Rather, the State argues that 

N.J.R.E. 607 provides that a witness’ credibility is always 

relevant and may be impeached with extrinsic evidence.

The Attorney General of New Jersey as amicus curiae, argues 

that defendants put their credibility at issue when electing to 
12

take the stand, therefore, N.J.R.E. 607 and 611 permits a 

prosecuting attorney to question a witness on matters related to 

the witness’ own credibility. Specifically, the Attorney 

General argues that N.J.R.E. 405 and 608 have no bearing on the 

use of a witness’ false names to impeach credibility. In other 

words, the Attorney General maintains that, “when impeachment is 

a prosecutor’s sole purpose for confronting a defendant 

regarding his use of [false names] . . . then such crossexamination should be permitted to allow the jury to assess the 

defendant’s credibility.” The Attorney General notes that, 

because the assistant prosecutor never used the term “alias,” 

referring instead to defendant’s use of “another name,” the 

assistant prosecutor did not imply defendant’s “membership in 

the criminal class” and therefore did not run afoul of Salaam. 

IV.

N.J.R.E. 607 provides generally that, “[e]xcept as 

otherwise provided by Rules 405 and 608, for the purpose of 

impairing or supporting the credibility of a witness, any party 

including the party calling the witness may examine the witness 

and introduce extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of 

credibility[.]” In short, N.J.R.E. 607 permits the introduction 

of extrinsic evidence affecting a witness’ credibility 

regardless of whether that evidence is relevant to any other 

issue in the case. See Green v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 160 N.J.
13

480, 494-95 (1999). There are exceptions to this general rule 

set forth in N.J.R.E. 405 and 608. These exceptions restrict 

the types of extrinsic evidence that may be introduced in 

efforts to impeach a witness. 

N.J.R.E. 405 provides, in relevant part: 

(a) Reputation, opinion, or conviction of 

crime. When evidence of character or a 

trait of character of a person is 

admissible, it may be proved by evidence of 

reputation, evidence in the form of opinion, 

or evidence of conviction of a crime which 

tends to prove the trait. Specific 

instances of conduct not the subject of a 

conviction of a crime shall be inadmissible.

[N.J.R.E. 405(a) (emphasis added).]

Thus, N.J.R.E. 405 generally provides that a witness’ character 

trait, including truthfulness, cannot be proven by specific 

instances of conduct, unless that conduct was the subject of a 

prior conviction. See State v. Spivey, 179 N.J. 229, 242-43 

(2004) (upholding trial court’s refusal to allow crossexamination by prosecuting attorney on prior mishandling of 

evidence); State v. Dreher, 302 N.J. Super. 408, 455-56 (App. 

Div.) (upholding trial court’s refusal to allow crossexamination of State’s witness regarding prior incident of 

credit card fraud for which witness was never convicted), 

certif. denied, 107 N.J. 647 (1997).

N.J.R.E. 608 governs permissible and prohibited methods of 

proving a witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness. 
14

It restricts the permissible methods of proving a witness’ 

character to those set forth in N.J.R.E. 405. N.J.R.E. 608 also

expressly excludes specific instances of conduct that are not 

the subject of a conviction to prove a witness’ character for 

truthfulness or untruthfulness. As stated in State v. Guenther, 

181 N.J. 129, 140 (2004), “our rules permit evidence in the form 

of opinion, reputation, or a prior criminal conviction to attack 

a witness’s credibility . . . . However, evidence of specific 

instances of conduct—other than a prior conviction—to prove the 

character trait of untruthfulness is prohibited.” (internal 

citations omitted).

In a line of cases beginning with Salaam, supra, 225 N.J. 

Super. at 72-76, New Jersey courts specifically have considered

cases that address when a judgment of conviction may be referred

to and what information in such judgments may be used to impeach 

credibility. For instance, a judgment of conviction may be 

produced to prove the existence of a prior conviction. See

State v. H.G.G., 202 N.J. Super. 267, 279 (App. Div. 1985). 

Other decisions cited by the State suggest that, in addition to 

using a judgment to establish the fact of a conviction, counsel 

may question a witness regarding all matters that would normally 

appear on the judgment. See e.g., State v. Garvin 44 N.J. 268, 

280 (1965) (noting that courts have “authorize[d] proof by 

cross-examination of what the record of conviction discloses.”) 
15

However, more recent decisions have identified several elements 

contained in a judgment of conviction that cannot be disclosed 

to a jury in order to impeach a witness’ credibility. For 

example, in State v. Jenkins, 299 N.J. Super. 61, 73-75 (App. 

Div. 1997), the Appellate Division noted that a probation 

violation “does not constitute a criminal conviction” and thus 

“cannot be used for impeachment purposes [pursuant to] N.J.R.E.

609” even if recorded on a judgment of conviction. 

Similarly, in State v. Burgos, 262 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. 

Div. 1992), the Appellate Division held that criminal charges

that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement cannot be used 

to impeach a witness’ credibility, despite their inclusion on a 

judgment of conviction, noting that “[t]he mere fact the 

dismissed criminal charges may appear on the judgment of 

conviction is irrelevant. Only convictions of crimes may be 

used to affect credibility.” Ibid. 

In Salaam, supra, the issue before the Appellate Division 

was whether the trial judge committed harmful error by revealing 

the defendant’s false names to the jury. 225 N.J. Super. at 72. 

During the trial, the judge twice referred to defendant as 

“Abdul Haqq Salaam, also known as Willie Favors.” Ibid. 

Defendant objected, arguing that these references to his false 

name denied him a fair trial. Ibid. 
16

The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that “[t]hese 

references neither compromised defendant’s right to have the 

jury evaluate the merits of his defense nor prejudiced his right 

to a fair trial.” Id. at 76. The panel highlighted the fact 

that “the references to defendant’s prior name were made 

sparingly—only three times—and did not suggest an element of 

criminal association or bad character on the part of defendant.” 

Ibid. (emphasis added). The panel went on to explain, “it is 

well-settled that ‘the fact of alias names should be kept from 

the jury unless relevant for some purpose[.]’” Id. at 72

(quoting State v. Stanhope, 676 P.2d 1146, 1151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

1984) (internal citations omitted)). The panel noted that the 

main objection to the use of a false name in a criminal 

prosecution is “that an alias implies that the defendant belongs 

to the criminal class and thereby prejudices the jury.” Id. at 

73 (quoting State v. Muniz, 622 P.2d 1037 (N.M. 1981) (internal 

citation omitted)). Thus, Salaam stands for the proposition 

that, in order for the admission of the reference to a false 

name to constitute grounds for reversal, “some tangible form of 

prejudice” to the defendant must be demonstrated. Ibid. 

V.

At the outset of our analysis, we clarify what this case is 

and is not about. This case is not about permitting the State 

to impeach the credibility of a testifying defendant with a 
17

judgment of conviction. This is expressly permitted by N.J.R.E.

609, subject to certain exceptions not relevant in this case. 

Here, the assistant prosecutor could have used judgments of 

defendant’s prior convictions to impeach defendant’s credibility 

without bringing to the jury’s attention the use of false names. 

However, the assistant prosecutor did not follow that course. 

Rather, the impeaching information was not the existence of

these prior convictions, but defendant’s use of false names to 

police officers when arrested for those offenses for which he 

was later convicted. 

This case is also not about arguing to the jury that 

defendant is part of a criminal class. This argument is 

improper. Salaam, supra, 225 N.J. Super. at 73. Although no 

such argument was made here, the assistant prosecutor argued 

that: defendant lied and used false names on two prior occasions 

because it benefited him to do so, and defendant was testifying 

falsely at trial for the same reasons, i.e., it would benefit

him. 

It is clear from the record that these specific instances 

of lying were not the subject of criminal convictions. For that 

reason, the introduction of false-name evidence was inadmissible 

and contrary to N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608.

Both the State and defendant argued in summations that the

outcome of this trial hinged almost entirely on witness 
18

credibility. The critical difference between Salaam and this 

case is that here, the State used defendant’s prior use of false 

names to impeach his credibility as a witness in a way that 

violates N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608. In a close case, such as this 

one, the wrongful admission of such impeaching evidence had a 

capacity to affect the outcome of the trial. 

We note that Salaam and the cases following it concerned 

whether the mere disclosure of a defendant’s false names, 

regardless of whether the defendant testified, necessitated the 

reversal of the defendant’s conviction. In Salaam, King, and 

Paduani, the references to the defendants’ false names were 

brief and the State did not use the false names to make a 

substantive point or impeach the credibility of a witness. See

State v. King, 372 N.J. Super. 227, 240-41 (App. Div. 2004), 

certif. denied, 185 N.J. 226 (2005); Salaam, supra, 225 N.J. 

Super. at 75-76; State v. Paduani, 307 N.J. Super. 134, 146-47

(App. Div.), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 216 (1998). 

Here, defendant’s false names were intentionally disclosed 

and the assistant prosecutor repeatedly referred to them to make 

the point that defendant’s testimony was not to be believed. 

The use of false names for impeachment purposes introduces 

additional evidentiary issues that were simply not at stake in 

Salaam, King, and Paduani, and thus, we decline to rely on those 

cases when deciding this issue.
19

The better analytical framework is set forth in the New 

Jersey Rules of Evidence for dealing with the impeachment of 

witness testimony. As discussed in section IV of this opinion,

the general principle is that extrinsic evidence may be 

introduced to impeach a witness’ testimony, N.J.R.E. 607, but if 

the impeachment takes the form of an attack on a witness’

character for truthfulness, the only permissible evidence to 

impeach credibility is of opinion or reputation, or evidence of 

a prior conviction. N.J.R.E. 608-609.

Evidence that defendant had previously lied about his name 

does not fit into any of these categories. In order to qualify 

as “evidence in the form of opinion or reputation,” the State 

would have had to present the testimony of a third party who 

knew defendant. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 

186 N.J. 286, 309-10 (2006). That, of course, did not occur 

here. 

Although N.J.R.E. 607, standing alone, seemingly permits

the prosecuting attorney’s use of defendant’s false names in 

this case, N.J.R.E. 405(a) and 608 forbids such practice unless 

the use of a false name resulted in a conviction. Additionally, 

N.J.R.E. 607 is specifically limited by N.J.R.E. 405 or 608 

(“Except otherwise provided by Rules 405 and 608 . . . .”). 

Despite the assertions by the State and amicus to the contrary, 

the assistant prosecutor clearly used defendant’s use of a false 
20

name for the purpose of establishing defendant’s character trait 

for lack of veracity and argued that defendant was acting in 

conformity with that trait while testifying. After inducing 

defendant to admit that he had provided the police with a false 

name in connection with an earlier conviction, the assistant 

prosecutor repeatedly asked whether defendant had lied during 

earlier arrests “because it would benefit [him] in some way.” 

When defendant conceded that that had been his motivation, the 

assistant prosecutor immediately turned to the testimony that 

defendant had offered on direct examination, asking several 

times whether it would “benefit [him] to lie” about the events 

of the night of the carjacking. The only purpose of that 

questioning was to persuade the jury that because defendant had 

lied in a particular situation in the past, it was reasonable to 

conclude that he was lying on the stand. And, in case the 

jurors were unable to make that connection on their own, the 

assistant prosecutor twice made it for them during summation, 

rhetorically asking whether they could trust the testimony of 

someone who was willing to “lie about his name.”

Nor does the assistant prosecutor’s use of defendant’s 

false names qualify as evidence of a “witness’ conviction of a 

crime” under N.J.R.E. 609. This Court has emphasized that it is 

only the conviction, not events that may have occurred ancillary 

to a conviction, that can be used for impeachment purposes. See
21

State v. Rowe, 57 N.J. 293, 302-03 (1970); Jenkins, supra, 299 

N.J. Super. at 75; 1991 Supreme Court Committee Comment on 

N.J.R.E. 609 (“While [N.J.R.E. 609] draws no distinction between 

crimes of dishonesty or false statement and other crimes, it is 

clear that it applies only to indictable offenses which are the 

subject of valid convictions.”). 

Further, the State’s argument that N.J.R.E. 609 permits a 

prosecuting attorney to introduce “everything within the four 

corners of the [judgment of conviction]” is not supported by our 

caselaw. Although it is true this Court had at an earlier time 

used sweeping language to that effect, see Garvin, supra, 44 

N.J. at 280 (noting that courts have consistently “authorize[d] 

proof by cross-examination of what the record of conviction 

discloses”); State v. Costa, 11 N.J. 239, 250 (1953)

(“[I]nterrogation to disclose conviction of a crime for the 

purpose of affecting credibility may embrace anything which is 

part of the record of conviction[.]”), our courts have recently 

adopted a more restrictive approach. Our courts have since 

established that certain information available through records 

generated in connection with a criminal prosecution should not 

be disclosed to a jury. See State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377, 391

(1993); Jenkins, supra, 299 N.J. Super. at 75; Burgos, supra, 

262 N.J. Super. at 6; State v. Medina, 254 N.J. Super. 668, 678

(App. Div. 1992). Thus, the mere inclusion of information on a 
22

judgment of conviction does not automatically entitle a 

prosecutor to use it for purposes of witness impeachment.

The assistant prosecutor made defendant’s prior use of 

false names the centerpiece of his attack on defendant’s 

credibility. An examination of the transcript of the assistant 

prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant reveals that a 

substantial portion of the cross-examination was devoted to 

establishing that defendant had previously lied about his name 

and suggesting that, because defendant had “lied for a benefit” 

when he gave a false name, he was likely lying for a benefit 

while on the stand. 

The outcome of the trial depended on the jury’s credibility 

assessments. We conclude that defendant’s conviction must be 

reversed because the State’s primary attack on defendant’s 

credibility was based on use of improperly admitted character 

evidence and closing arguments premised on such evidence.

Finally, having determined that the judge’s decision to 

allow the assistant prosecutor to question defendant regarding 

his use of false names was in error, we address whether that 

error was harmful. That is, whether the error is “clearly 

capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2. 

The State presented essentially no physical evidence 

establishing that defendant was the individual who drove 

Robinson’s car. Instead, the State relied on the testimony of 
23

two witnesses -- Sharon and S.C. -- who testified that they saw 

defendant enter the car and drive away. Defendant testified and 

denied that he had gone near the car, claiming instead that he 

had simply participated in Robinson’s beating. The State, on 

the other hand, impermissibly attacked defendant’s credibility 

by improperly admitting character evidence. Indeed, the State’s 

summation centered on this evidence. 

We conclude that under these circumstances, the improper 

admission of evidence of prior use of aliases or false names had 

the clear capacity to produce an unjust result and requires a 

new trial. 

VI.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division is 

reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Law Division for a 

new trial.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, 

PATTERSON, and JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) join in JUDGE 

RODRÍGUEZ’s opinion.
1

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

NO. A-67 SEPTEMBER TERM 2011

ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JARRETT PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

DECIDED January 15, 2014

Chief Justice Rabner PRESIDING

OPINION BY Judge Rodríguez 

CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY

DISSENTING OPINION BY 

CHECKLIST REVERSE AND 

REMAND

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER X

JUSTICE LaVECCHIA X

JUSTICE ALBIN X

JUSTICE PATTERSON X

JUDGE RODRÍGUEZ (t/a) X

JUDGE CUFF (t/a) X

TOTALS 6