State v. Jones
40 A.3d 1155
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Jones was arrested January 22, 2010 in Salem after officers found 99 cocaine bags and four oxycodone tablets concealed in his groin area.
- Lieutenant Haslett, an experienced narcotics expert, testified on distribution and opined defendant possessed cocaine for distribution, not personal use.
- Haslett identified six factors supporting distribution: economic impracticality of personal-use quantity, lack of paraphernalia suggesting use, location at arrest, concealment of drugs, street-distribution packaging, and typical dealer behavior.
- Haslett connected oxycodone possession to distribution purposes, stating dealers often carry multiple narcotics to appeal to buyers.
- The trial judge admitted Haslett’s testimony and later gave a limiting instruction that did not fully align with Odom/McLean requirements.
- Defendant was convicted on counts including possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; sentencing followed, and appellate issues were raised regarding expert testimony and 404(b) evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haslett’s narcotics-distribution expert testimony violated Odom McLean framework | Jones | Jones | Yes; four Odom violations rendered the testimony improper. |
| Whether oxycodone evidence was admissible under 404(b) despite lack of indictment | Jones | Jones | No; probative value outweighed by prejudice; improper admission. |
| Whether limiting instruction cured error from 404(b) evidence | Jones | Jones | No; instruction was inadequate to mitigate prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1989) (established safeguards for expert testimony in drug-distribution cases)
- State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) (limits on expert testimony; use of hypotheticals; avoid guilt-opinion)
- State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280 (2009) (improperly targeted occupancy-to-distribute opinions)
- State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (2006) (hypothetical format considerations for experts)
- State v. Summers, 176 N.J. 306 (2003) (hypothetical format limitations on expert testimony)
- State v. Baskerville, 324 N.J. Super. 245 (1999) (limits on expert to state facts and opinion on issues)
- State v. Singleton, 326 N.J. Super. 351 (1999) (expert testimony cannot directly opine guilt in carceral terms)
- Rose v. Cofield, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (Cofield four-part test for admissibility of uncharged misconduct; limiting instruction requirements)
- Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (four-part test for 404(b) admissibility; probative value vs prejudice)