## Facts

- Helen Kim was stabbed in her home by an unknown assailant and survived.
- Helen’s husband, Johann Christian Kim, suspected his former girlfriend, Cecilia X. Chen, and told Helen the attacker might be Chen.
- Before any police identification procedure, the husband showed Helen multiple photographs of Chen, which Helen viewed repeatedly.
- Police later conducted a photo array, and Helen selected Chen’s photograph; Helen also identified Chen at trial.
- Chen moved for a pretrial hearing to challenge the admissibility of the identification, arguing the husband’s conduct was highly suggestive and inflated Helen’s confidence.
- The trial court denied the hearing because there was no suggestive police conduct; the jury convicted Chen.
- The Appellate Division ruled Chen was entitled to a hearing; the State sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing to test the admissibility of an eyewitness identification when allegedly “highly suggestive” conduct was committed by a private actor rather than law enforcement.
2. What threshold showing a defendant must make to trigger such a hearing, and what the trial court must assess at that hearing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a pretrial hearing may be required even without police involvement.
- When a defendant presents evidence that an identification was made under highly suggestive circumstances created by a private actor that could lead to a mistaken identification, the trial court must conduct a preliminary hearing upon request.
- The Court modified the Appellate Division’s approach and remanded for a pretrial admissibility hearing applying the standards it articulated.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have a gatekeeping duty to prevent unreliable, misleading identification evidence from reaching a jury.
- Reliability concerns are not limited to police-created suggestiveness; private-party suggestion can also distort memory and increase witness confidence.
- A hearing is not automatic; the defendant must make a threshold showing that:
  - the identification resulted from “highly suggestive” circumstances, and
  - those circumstances could produce a mistaken identification.
- At the hearing, the court evaluates the nature and extent of the suggestive private conduct and the identification’s reliability under the totality of circumstances, and may admit, exclude, or limit the identification evidence as warranted.

## Conclusion

New Jersey required trial courts to conduct a pretrial reliability hearing, upon an adequate threshold showing, when a private actor’s highly suggestive conduct may have caused an eyewitness to identify the defendant, even if the police did not employ suggestive procedures.


State v. Chen, 208 N.J. 307 (2011)