State v. French G. Lee, A-6-25

A Moorestown restaurant was burglarized twice in September 2018, and latent fingerprints from the register were the only evidence linking defendant to the crimes. 1
Before trial, Lee moved to bar fingerprint-expert testimony, relying on the NAS and PCAST reports to challenge ACE-V fingerprint analysis as unreliable. 2
The trial court denied the motion without a reliability hearing, and a jury convicted Lee of both burglaries. 3
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the trial court should have held a pretrial reliability hearing under N.J.R.E. 702 and also erred in voir dire and narration testimony rulings. 4
The Supreme Court granted certification and held that trial courts must gatekeep expert reliability before admitting it to a jury. 5
The Court appointed a Special Adjudicator to conduct a plenary hearing and retained jurisdiction. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must the court hold a pretrial reliability hearing on fingerprint evidence? 7	State said fingerprint evidence was historically accepted and reliable.	Lee said NAS/PCAST cast doubt on ACE-V and required a Rule 104 hearing.	Yes; the trial court should have held a reliability hearing. 8
What standard governs admissibility of expert fingerprint testimony? 9	State relied on Frye and prior acceptance of fingerprint evidence.	Lee urged the newer reliability-focused Olenowski/Daubert approach.	N.J.R.E. 702 requires reliability; Frye no longer controls criminal cases. 10
Should the voir dire issue be decided now? 11	State argued the trial judge acted within discretion.	Lee argued jurors should have been questioned about fingerprint reliability.	Not now; the Court deferred the issue pending the hearing outcome. 12
Should narration testimony issue be decided now? 13	State argued the video testimony was not plain error.	Lee argued detectives gave improper subjective opinions.	Not now; the Court deferred the issue pending the hearing outcome. 14

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (former general-acceptance test for expert reliability 15)
State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (N.J. 2023) (adopted a reliability-focused inquiry and Daubert factors for criminal expert evidence 16)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (lists reliability factors for expert testimony 17)
State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (N.J. 2018) (trial courts must assess expert reliability before jury presentation 18)
In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (N.J. 2018) (focuses admissibility on methodology and reasoning, not mere general acceptance 19)
State v. Nieves, 262 N.J. 161 (N.J. 2025) (trial courts act as gatekeepers for expert testimony 20)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (federal gatekeeping obligation mirrors Rule 702 reliability review 21)
State v. Watson, 254 N.J. 558 (N.J. 2023) (limits narration testimony to objective description, not disputed conclusions 22)
State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393 (N.J. 2017) (challenged expert testimony may require a Rule 104 hearing 23)
State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (N.J. 2013) (explains invited-error doctrine 24)