SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4630-16T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SOLOMAN D. NEAL, a/k/a

SOLOMON NEAL, and KARIM SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted May 31, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 15-

06-1269.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Stephen P. Hunter, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew 

E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

July 20, 2018
2 A-4630-16T4

Defendant Solomon D. Neal entered a guilty plea to an amended 

charge of third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2), 

after a Law Division judge denied his motion to suppress an outof-court identification. In accord with the plea agreement, the 

judge sentenced defendant to fifteen months of probation in 

addition to fines and penalties on April 28, 2017. Defendant 

appeals, alleging that his motion to suppress should have been 

granted because the out-of-court identification was impermissibly 

suggestive. We affirm.

We summarize the circumstances as developed during the 

suppression hearing. At around 2:00 p.m. on December 24, 2014, 

Ajegbe Oyekunle, an apartment building manager, was making repairs 

to the front door of the structure. Oyekunle was going back out 

to his van to retrieve some construction materials when a car 

abruptly stopped in front of it. The driver——who the victim 

immediately recognized by name as the son of one of his tenants, 

whom he had known for seven years——asked him "Why the f--- you 

messin' with my father?"

Defendant driver and the passenger stepped out of the car;

the passenger held a knife. They punched and kicked Oyekunle in 

the head and face; Oyekunle's cell phone and wallet fell out of 

his pocket. Defendant picked up the items and threw the cell 

phone at the victim. As Oyekunle approached defendant to retrieve 
3 A-4630-16T4

his wallet, the passenger wielded the knife and Oyekunle retreated. 

Defendant took cash from the wallet, and threw the wallet at 

Oyekunle. Defendant and the passenger then drove away. 

Oyekunle called 911 and told the dispatcher that he had just

been robbed and assaulted by Solomon Neal, the son of a tenant who 

had recently been evicted. After police arrived at the scene, 

Oyekunle was administered medical treatment, however, he did not 

go to the station to make a statement until approximately 6:00

p.m. because he wanted to complete the work on the building. 

During the video recorded interview at the police station, 

Irvington Police Department Detective Philip Rucker showed the 

victim two photographs of defendant, including his Division of 

Motor Vehicle photo. Rucker testified that because the victim 

knew his assailant, he did not create a photo array or otherwise 

comply with the Attorney General guidelines found in State v. 

Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011). See R. 3:11; see also Office of 

the Attorney Gen., N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, Attorney Gen. 

Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Line-Up 

Identification Procedures, 1 (2001). Rucker described the 

identification procedure as a "show-up," during which he displayed

the photographs to the victim and asked if the victim knew the 

person. He said that Oyekunle had explained defendant's father 

had been a tenant over the course of years. Once Rucker obtained 
4 A-4630-16T4

defendant's name from Oyekunle, Rucker requested defendant's 

Division of Motor Vehicles photograph. Although the interview 

took place several hours after the incident, Oyekunle was still 

bleeding and wearing a bloody shirt. 

The judge found that having observed the officer and the 

victim during the suppression hearing, he "found their testimony 

credible in all material respects." The judge concluded that the 

officer's failure to adhere to the Henderson guidelines was 

inconsequential. The victim had known defendant by name for many 

years. Therefore, only showing the victim photographs of defendant 

was not suggestive. Although he had granted defendant's motion 

for a Wade hearing, defendant ultimately did not sustain his 

burden. Accordingly, the judge did not suppress the 

identification. 

On appeal, defendant raises the following point:

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE IDENTIFICATION 

SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE UNDER THE 

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS A 

SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE 

MISIDENTIFICATION. U.S. Const. Amend. V, XIV; 

N.J. Const. Art. I, ¶¶ 1, 9.

We accord "considerable weight" to a trial judge's findings 

regarding the impermissible suggestiveness of an identification

procedure. State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 203 (2008) (quoting 

State v. Farrow, 61 N.J. 434, 451 (1972)). A defendant bears the 
5 A-4630-16T4

"initial burden of showing some evidence of suggestiveness that 

could lead to a mistaken identification." Henderson, 208 N.J. at 

288. "The findings of the trial judge as to reliability of the 

witnesses are [also] entitled to considerable weight." State v. 

Wilson, 362 N.J. Super. 319, 327 (App. Div. 2003) (citations 

omitted). The State may proffer an identification as long as 

"there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to support 

the findings." Adams, 194 N.J. at 203 (citation omitted). 

In this case, defendant was well-known to the victim as he 

had known him by name for years. During the 911 call, the victim 

told police defendant was his attacker. Thus, the reliability of 

Oyekunle's identification was not undermined by the fact he was

presented the two photographs of defendant. Having found the 

victim believable, his familiarity with his attacker was 

sufficient credible evidence for the court to hold the 

identification was reliable. Defendant's argument lacks 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. See

R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.