State of New Jersey v. Brian A. Green, 147 A.3d 876

Police, based on information from an unidentified confidential informant, obtained warrants and searched a multi-tenant second-floor dwelling and an automobile; the informant did not testify and the court denied defendant's request to disclose the informant's identity.
Searches uncovered 15.8 ounces of packaged marijuana in one room, 28.9 grams and residue in another room with items bearing defendant's name (wallet, cash, ledger, Ziploc bags, freezer with residue), drug paraphernalia (scales, baggies) in a third room, and small amounts in a hallway closet.
Defendant (Brian Green) and co-defendant Gooden were tried together; Gooden was acquitted and Green convicted of possession with intent to distribute (third-degree) and simple possession (disorderly persons).
The State presented a narcotics expert (Detective Sullivan) who, after a hypothetical mirroring the facts, testified the items indicated intent to distribute and called the operation a "classic street level marijuana distribution operation." The expert also testified he reviews the State's file before deciding whether to testify and had declined to testify in some prior cases when concluding the drugs were for personal use.
On appeal, Green argued the expert testimony usurped the jury's fact-finding (plain error), the State's opening referenced hearsay about ongoing drug sales (Bankston), and raised sentencing and other collateral challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of drug expert testimony on intent to distribute	Expert testimony explained distribution indicia and was proper to assist jury	Sullivan's opinion invaded jury province by opining on defendant's state of mind; admission was plain error	Reversed: expert testimony improperly pronounced guilt/intent and constituted plain error under Cain; new trial ordered
Retroactivity of Cain holding (limits on expert opinion)	State implicitly relied on pre-Cain law allowing Odom-style expert opinion	Cain should apply to cases on direct appeal (pipeline retroactivity)	Court applies Cain with pipeline retroactivity to this appeal and finds error reversible
Prosecutor's opening referencing police "information" that drugs were being sold (Bankston)	Opening statement described investigatory origins; trial judge gave cautionary instruction	Defendant said the statement violated Bankston (hearsay and Sixth Amendment)	Statement was troubling; but because reversal is ordered on expert error, court did not decide whether Bankston error required relief
Evidence of bullets found in bedroom	State noted bullets but later dismissed related charges	Defendant argued bullets were irrelevant and prejudicial	Mention of bullets was improper but not independently prejudicial enough to require new trial; avoid mentioning on retrial

State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410 (clarified limits on drug-expert testimony; expert may not opine on defendant's state of mind)
State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (discussed scope of expert testimony in drug cases and use of hypotheticals)
State v. Simms, 224 N.J. 393 (reinforced Cain's prohibition on expert testimony that mimics statutory guilt)
State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (criticized broad use of hypotheticals for drug-expert testimony)
State v. Reed, 197 N.J. 280 (cautioned limits on Odom's application)
State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233 (framework for deciding retroactive effect of new criminal procedure rules)
State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (three-factor test for retroactivity analysis)
State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (prohibits testimony relaying hearsay about unidentified informant; Sixth Amendment concerns)