State v. Cromedy

In State v. Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112, 727 A.2d 457 (1999), the identification made by the civilian victim did not occur until almost eight months after the crime had been committed, when the victim saw an African-American male across the street from her whom she thought was her attacker. he Court held that such instruction should be given when "identification is a critical issue in the case and an eyewitness's cross-racial identification is not corroborated by other evidence giving it independent reliability." Id. at 132, 727 A.2d 457. In those circumstances, the jury should be given a cautionary instruction that it should pay close attention to the possible influence of race on the accuracy of the identification. Id. at 133, 727 A.2d 457. The Supreme Court has held that the trial court's failure to give a requested instruction regarding cross-racial identification may constitute reversible error. Id. at 115, 727 A.2d 457.