State v. Scott M. Cain(074124)
133 A.3d 619
N.J.2016Background
- Cain was charged in Bergen County with multiple drug offenses arising from two sales and storage of drugs at his residence.
- At trial, detective testified as a drug-distribution expert and gave an ultimate-issue opinion that Cain possessed drugs with intent to distribute after a lengthy hypothetical.
- Cain was convicted on several counts; court imposed an extended-term sentence of 16 years with 8 years’ parole ineligibility for second-degree possession with intent to distribute.
- Appellate Division affirmed convictions but remanded for sentencing; certification granted to address expert-ultimate-issue testimony and hypotheticals.
- This Court overruled Odom’s allowance of ultimate-issue expert testimony in drug cases, held hypotheticals may push juries toward verdicts, and reversed/ remanded for new trial.
- The decision limits expert testimony to matters beyond the juror’s ken and preserves jury determination of the state of mind, while cautioning about prejudicial references to warrants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony on state of mind is admissible | Cain contends expert cannot express guilt-like ultimate issue | Cain argues expert testimony is necessary to explain drug-traffic nuances | Not admissible; ultimate-issue testimony prohibited |
| Whether the hypothetical question was improper | Cain argues it improperly framed guilt by mimicking statutory language | State contends hypotheticals aid understanding of drug-marked facts | Improper; tainted the verdict and intruded on jury’s role |
| Whether references to a judge-issued search warrant were plain error | Cain asserts repeated warrant references biased jury | State claims warrant references were probative about lawful authority | Prejudicial risk acknowledged; warrant references upheld as not plain error given other issues (but conviction reversed) |
| What is the permissible scope of drug-expert testimony | Cain argues experts may explain drug trade facts but not state of mind | State argues experts can assist with distribution indicators | Experts may discuss distribution indicators but not express defendant’s state of mind |
| Pretrial vetting of hypotheticals in drug trials | Cain advocates pretrial hearing to assess hypotheticals | State opposes mandatory pretrial vetting | Pretrial vetting not required; trial court gatekeeper discretion allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Odom, 116 N.J. 65 (1989) (upheld ultimate-issue testimony but cautioned against direct guilt pronouncements)
- State v. Summers, 176 N.J. 306 (2003) (limits on hypothetical questions and use of symbols for defendant)
- State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (2006) (concerns about misuse of hypotheticals and obvious testimony)
- State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280 (2009) (held constructively possessed opinions can be improper)
- State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) (rejected expert testimony that usurps jury function)
- State v. Sowell, 213 N.J. 89 (2013) (criticized misuse of expert testimony in drug prosecutions)
- State v. Alvarez, 318 N.J. Super. 137 (1999) (warrant references can be plain error)