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. Krako ra, 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PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough it is post ed 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, 20182 A - 4630
- 16T4

Defendant Solomo n 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 suppres s an out of
- court identification. In accord with the plea agreement, the judge sentenced defendant to fifteen months of probation in addition to fines and penalties on A pril 2 8, 2017 . Defendant appeals, alleging that his motion to suppress should have be en granted because the out
- of
- court identificati on was impermissibly suggestive . We affirm. We summarize the circumstances as developed during the suppression hearing. A t around 2:00 p.m. on December 24, 2014, Ajegb e Oyekunle, an apartment building mana ger, 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,
wh om he had known for seven years

—— asked him "W hy the f
--- you messin' with my father?"
Defendant driver and t he passenger stepped out of the car ; the passenger held a knife. T hey punch ed and kick ed Oyekunle in
the head and face ; Oyek unle'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 retrieve3 A - 4630
- 16T4

his wallet, the passenger wielded the knife and Oyekunle retreated.
Defendant took c ash from the wallet , and threw t he wallet at Oyekunle. D efendant 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 a t the police station, Irvington Police Department Detective Philip Rucker showed the victim two photographs of defendant, including his Division of
M otor V ehicle photo. Rucker t e st i fi ed that because the victim
knew his assailant, he did not cre ate 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 Con ducting 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 t he victim knew the person. He said that Oyekunle had e xplained defendant's father
had been a tenant over the course of years . Once Rucker obtained4 A - 4630
- 16T4

defendant's name from Oyekunle, Rucker requested defendant's Division of Motor Vehicles photograph . A lthough the interview took place several hours after the inc ident, Oyekunle was still bleeding and w ea r ing a bloody shirt. The judge found that having observe d the officer and the victim during the suppression hearing, he "found their testimony credible in all material respects." The judge concluded that the
off icer's failure to adhere to the Henderson guidelines was inconsequential . T he victim had known defendant by name for many years. Therefore, only showing the victim photograph s of defendant was not suggestive. Although he had granted defendant's motion
f or a Wade hearing, defendant ultimately did not sustain his
burden . Accordingly, t he 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. A dams , 194 N.J. 186, 203 (2008) (quoting
State v. Farrow , 61 N.J. 434, 451 (1972)). A d efendant bears the5 A - 4630
- 16T4

"initial burden of showing some evidence of suggestiveness that could lead to a mistaken i dentification." 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. Supe r. 319, 327 (App. Div. 2003) (citations omitted) . The State may p roffer 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. D uring 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 familiarit y with his attacker was sufficient credible evidence for the court to h o ld 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.