STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHARLES P. MCCOY(11-03-0187, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5467-14T1

Background

Police surveilled a residence leased by McCoy and two others and obtained a search warrant executed November 22, 2010.
During the search McCoy (present in the home) told a detective that anything found in the house belonged to him; officers found one MDMA pill in a bowl on the dining-room table.
McCoy was arrested; during processing he told officers there was a half-pound of marijuana in the trunk of a car; the car search yielded substantial narcotics, but McCoy was later acquitted at trial of distribution-related charges.
At retrial the jury convicted McCoy only of third-degree possession of MDMA (the single pill); he was acquitted on other counts and two counts had been dismissed earlier.
The trial court denied a mistrial request after a detective—testifying as a narcotics expert—mentioned confidential informants/controlled buys; the court cured with a limiting instruction.
The court imposed an eight-year extended term with four years parole ineligibility; the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony referencing confidential informants/controlled buys required a mistrial	State: expert testimony was general and admissible; any prejudice cured by instruction	McCoy: testimony implied CI/controlled buys, violating confrontation and was highly prejudicial, entitling him to mistrial	Court: denial of mistrial proper; curative instruction was adequate and no manifest injustice occurred
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of the MDMA pill	State: defendant leased the home, was present alone, pill in plain view, and defendant claimed ownership of items in the house	McCoy: mere presence in house insufficient to prove (constructive) possession of the pill beyond reasonable doubt	Court: evidence (lease, presence, plain view, statement claiming items) sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer constructive or actual possession; acquittal denied
Whether the extended-term sentence was excessive	State: defendant qualified as persistent offender and aggravating factors supported extended term	McCoy: single-pill possession does not warrant an extended term or lengthy parole ineligibility	Court: sentence vacated — although defendant qualified as persistent offender, the sentence (upper-end extended term + 4-year parole ineligibility) shocked the judicial conscience given the minimal nature of the convicted offense; remand for resentencing
Whether sentencing court improperly considered unproven distribution allegations	State: referenced investigative context and prior conduct to justify deterrence	McCoy: sentencing relied in part on unproven controlled buys/ distribution allegations which may not be considered	Court: noted sentencing appeared influenced by unproved allegations; sentencing court must not rely on unproven criminal conduct — this informed the decision to vacate and remand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 224 N.J. 36 (mistrial standard; curative instruction alternatives)
State v. Zembreski, 445 N.J. Super. 412 (standard for Rule 3:18-2 sufficiency review)
State v. Morrison, 188 N.J. 2 (definition of actual and constructive possession)
State v. Kluber, 130 N.J. Super. 336 (evidentiary standard for acquittal motions)
State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221 (standards for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Jaffe, 220 N.J. 114 (consideration of post-offense conduct on resentencing)