STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALSAMIR T. BROWNÂ (13-03-0592, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4860-14T2

Officers in an unmarked car observed Brown toss what they perceived to be a machine gun into the trunk of a parked sedan and then drive away; they later stopped the car and Brown opened the trunk exposing the weapon in plain view.
Officers Gialanella and Cosgrove, both experienced in firearm investigations, testified they recognized the weapon (described as a MAC-10) based on its outline and an extended/high-capacity magazine.
The firearm had its serial number obliterated and was operable; no usable fingerprints were recovered.
Parties stipulated Brown lacked any permit to carry a firearm and admitted excerpts of a recorded prepaid jail call in which Brown discussed lack of fingerprints on the weapon.
Jury convicted Brown of second-degree unlawful possession of an assault firearm, fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm, and fourth-degree possession of a large-capacity magazine; he was sentenced to an aggregate nine years with 4.5 years parole ineligibility.
On appeal Brown challenged (1) officers’ testimony as improper lay opinion on ultimate issue, (2) admission of recorded call implying pretrial incarceration, and (3) excessiveness of sentence. Court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Brown's Argument	Held
Admissibility of officers’ testimony describing the weapon as a machine gun/MAC-10	Officers’ identification was proper lay opinion based on perception, training, and experience and helped explain their observations	Testimony impermissibly expressed police lay opinion on the ultimate issue of possession and should have been excluded or countered by a court instruction	Testimony was permissible under N.J.R.E. 701; based on perception and experience, not an opinion on ultimate guilt; no plain error
Admission of recorded prepaid jail call mentioning discovery and lack of fingerprints	Call was relevant and admissible; prepaid status alone does not necessarily indicate incarceration	Call disclosed that Brown was incarcerated pretrial and was prejudicial under N.J.R.E. 403/404(b)	Trial court did not abuse discretion; prepaid-call reference was not necessarily indicative of incarceration; admission did not deny fair trial
Sentence severity (nine years with Graves Act parole ineligibility)	Sentence within range; judge reasonably found aggravating factors preponderated and appropriately weighted them toward upper-mid range	Sentence excessive; court improperly relied on aggravating factors (including possibly overvaluing a single prior indictable conviction)	Sentence affirmed; even if one aggravating factor (factor 6) was tenuous, remaining findings supported the term and no remand required

State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) (limits on lay opinion testimony under N.J.R.E. 701)
State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91 (2013) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (standard for prejudice from error)
State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383 (1998) (deference to trial judge on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982) (reversal only when ruling is so wide of the mark as to manifestly deny justice)
State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) (limits on appellate review of sentence)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) (standards for sentencing review and range placement)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (sentencing review framework)
State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (2010) (appellate court should not substitute its assessment of aggravating/mitigating factors)
State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005) (guidance on tendency of sentences toward ends of range depending on factor balance)