## Facts

- A white Rutgers student (D.S.) was robbed and sexually assaulted in her brightly lit basement apartment in New Brunswick, New Jersey, on August 28, 1992.
- D.S. described the assailant as an African-American male; she reported that she saw him at close range and that he did not conceal his face.
- A sexual-assault examination recovered seminal fluid and spermatozoa.
- Shortly after the incident, D.S. helped prepare a composite sketch and viewed multiple photographic displays, including a photograph of McKinley Cromedy, but did not identify him.
- Approximately eight months later, on April 7, 1993, D.S. saw an African-American man on the street whom she believed was her assailant, called police, and police detained Cromedy.
- About fifteen minutes after detention, D.S. identified Cromedy in a show-up procedure.
- Identification was the central contested issue at trial, and the prosecution’s case relied largely on D.S.’s cross-racial identification.

## Issues

1. Whether, upon request, a trial court must give a specific jury instruction addressing the potential unreliability of cross-racial identification when identity is a critical issue and the State’s case rests primarily on a delayed cross-racial eyewitness identification.
2. Whether denying a requested cross-racial identification instruction in such circumstances constitutes reversible error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed Cromedy’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, when identification is critical, the case rests primarily on cross-racial identification, and the identification occurs after a significant delay, a requested cross-racial identification instruction must be given.
- The trial court’s refusal to provide the requested instruction was reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled, upon request, to a cross-racial identification jury instruction when: (1) identification is a key issue, (2) the witness and defendant are of different races, and (3) the State’s proof depends mainly on eyewitness identification that is not meaningfully corroborated.
- The standard identification charge may be insufficient because it does not alert jurors to research-supported difficulties that can arise in cross-racial identifications.
- Expert testimony is not a prerequisite to obtaining a cross-racial identification instruction in qualifying cases.
- The requirement is limited and fact-sensitive; it is not an automatic, sua sponte instruction in every case involving cross-racial identification.

## Conclusion

Because the prosecution’s case depended primarily on a delayed cross-racial identification and the defense requested a tailored instruction, the failure to instruct the jury on cross-racial identification risks required reversal and a remand for a new trial.


State v. Cromedy, 727 A.2d 457 (N.J. 1999)