State of New Jersey v. Kashif K. Patterson, 89 A.3d 616

Background

Police executed a search warrant at a residence and found 172 baggies of crack cocaine (92 on the table, 80 on the floor), crushed oxycodone, marijuana vials, empty vials, and a digital scale. Patterson had $1,175 on his person.
Patterson told police he was unemployed and had won the money gambling in Atlantic City; he denied ownership of the cocaine.
Indictment charged Patterson with multiple drug counts including possession with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute within 500 feet of public housing (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1).
At trial, an expert testified the baggies were packaged for distribution and that large amounts of small-denomination currency are consistent with trafficking. The jury convicted Patterson on counts including the Section 7.1 public-facility offense.
At sentencing the prosecutor sought a mandatory extended term under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) based on a prior drug conviction; the judge imposed a 12-year term with a five-year parole disqualifier on the Section 7.1 count.
On appeal Patterson raised prosecutorial-misconduct claims (comments about unemployment/cash, burden-shifting, elicited officer opinion) and challenged imposition of a mandatory extended term under Subsection 6(f) for the Section 7.1 offense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Prosecutor's use of evidence that Patterson was unemployed and had $1,175	Prosecutor argued cash and denominations supported an inference of trafficking and could be challenged because Patterson put his source of funds in dispute.	Patterson argued introduction and summation commentary impermissibly suggested motive from indigency and was prejudicial.	Admission and comment were not reversible: Patterson elicited/use of his statement opened the credibility issue; curative instructions cured any prejudice.
2. "No corroboration" remark—burden-shifting / right to silence	State responded that comment was a permissible challenge to the defense theory and not intended to shift burden.	Patterson argued the remark implied he had to produce corroboration and infringed his right to silence.	Court: remark was improper but cured by prompt objection, court sustaining the objection and strong curative instructions; error harmless.
3. Prosecutor eliciting officer opinion about Cooke's credibility	State used the officer's testimony to rebut Cooke's claim that the drugs were his.	Patterson argued asking the officer whether he believed Cooke impermissibly attacked the defense and intruded on jury's role.	Trial court struck the question and gave an instruction; appellate court found the single, limited instance cured and not reversible.
4. Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f) mandatory extended term applies to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1 (public-facility offense)	State applied Subsection 6(f) at sentencing; argued 7.1 flows from 2C:35-5 and is a drug-distribution offense appropriate for enhancement.	Patterson argued 2C:35-7.1 is not listed in 2C:43-6(f) and thus not eligible for the mandatory extended term.	Court held 2C:35-7.1 is not included in Subsection 6(f)'s explicit list and thus cannot be the basis for a mandatory extended term; remanded for resentencing without the 6(f) enhancement on the Section 7.1 count.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1 (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (expert testimony on drug distribution practices permissible)
State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and curative measures)
State v. Terrell, 359 N.J. Super. 241 (contrast where unemployment evidence was improperly used without curative instruction)
State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583 (police officer may not testify to another witness's credibility)
State v. Dillihay, 127 N.J. 42 (merger principles for Section 5 and Section 7.1 convictions)

Convictions affirmed; sentencing vacated in part and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.