STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HASSAN E. BEYÂ (14-07-1246, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1872-15T3

Background

Early morning, officers heard a large-caliber gunshot in Jersey City and drove toward the sound; they saw three men walking quickly and the men sped up when the police car approached.
Officer Kilroy observed two men (one in a red jacket, one in a black jacket) each holding a black metallic object he believed were long guns; he saw the man in the red jacket (later identified as defendant Hassan Bey) discard an item under a blue Dodge Neon.
Officers chased and apprehended the men shortly afterward; two shotguns were recovered from under the blue Neon and a nearby tan car and were found operable.
Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of second-degree possession of a firearm by a convicted person (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)); he pleaded guilty to a CDS charge separately and received concurrent sentencing.
Sentencing: ten years with five years parole ineligibility (statutory), concurrent three-year term for CDS; defendant appealed conviction and sentence raising several errors not objected to at trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer's testimony that defendant "possessed" the gun was improper ultimate-issue testimony	Officer’s description of observing defendant carrying and discarding the gun was factual, not an impermissible opinion	Testimony that defendant "possessed" the gun was an inappropriate legal/conclusory term and prejudicial	Affirmed: no error—testimony described direct, contemporaneous observation and was not an impermissible inference of intent
Whether court erred by omitting a limiting instruction about use of the predicate-offense stipulation	State relied on evidence of the predicate conviction as an element; omission did not cause plain error given overwhelming evidence	Failure to give Model Charge limiting instruction (preventing jury use of prior conviction as propensity evidence) violated due process	Error to omit limiting instruction, but harmless plain-error review: no reversal due to overwhelming evidence of guilt
Whether trial court should have given an identification charge sua sponte	Identification was not disputed; officer’s training and contemporaneous observation made misidentification unlikely	Absence of an identification instruction prejudiced defendant because jury should be guided on credibility/identification risks	No plain error: no issue as to identity/presence; charge not required under facts
Whether the ten-year sentence with five-year parole disqualifier was excessive	State sought appropriate term; parole disqualifier was mandatory	Sentence was excessive given circumstances	Affirmed: within discretion given defendant’s extensive record; parole bar mandatory under statute

Key Cases Cited

State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (police opinion of a narcotics sale may be improper ultimate-issue testimony)
State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410 (officer testimony on defendant's state of mind/intent in drug distribution was improper)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (plain-error standard and harmless-error analysis)
State v. Brown, 180 N.J. 572 (unitary trial on elements with limiting jury instruction to mitigate prejudice)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (prejudice from evidence of prior crimes; limits on propensity evidence)
State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (sentencing discretion for weapons offenses)
State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316 (when identification/credibility instructions are required)