State v. McLean, 16 A.3d 332

Paterson undercover surveillance tracked Kelvin McLean in two suspected street-level drug transactions, with a white Mercury Sable involved and drugs later recovered from the vehicle.
Detective Altmann testified he observed two hand-to-hand exchanges and identified McLean as the participant in the transactions.
The first transaction occurred near Carroll Street; the second occurred about ten minutes later in the same area, prompting surveillance relocation.
Detective Formentin found ten glassine heroin envelopes and a bag of crack cocaine in the car; $384 in small denominations and $20 were recovered on McLean.
At trial, the State relied on Altmann’s observations to prove drug transactions; defense argued Altmann’s testimony was improper lay or expert opinion.
Appellate Division affirmed most convictions but remanded on two counts, raising a narrow question about admissibility of lay opinion by a police witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Altmann’s testimony qualifies as lay opinion under N.J.R.E. 701.	McLean	McLean	No; the testimony was not permissible lay opinion.
Whether permitting the officer to testify about his belief invaded the jury's fact-finding role.	State	McLean	Yes; it improperly invaded jury function.
Whether expert testimony framework (Odom/Nesbitt) governs narcotics-transactions testimony.	State	McLean	Yes; limits on expert-like testimony apply and lay-opinion approach was inappropriate.

State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (2006) (limits on expert testimony; transactions may not require expert where ordinary perception suffices)
State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 67 (1999) (set framework for expert testimony; hypotheticals; no lay-opinion on guilt)
State v. Summers, 176 N.J. 303 (2003) (limits on use of hypotheticals and expert-style testimony to express guilt)
State v. Berry, 140 N.J. 280 (1995) (permissible expert testimony on distribution methods; avoid undue prejudice)