State v. Thomas L. Scott (077434) (Monmouth and Statewide), A-86-15

On Nov. 27, 2012, Long Branch police detained Thomas L. Scott and found two small packages in his left pants pocket containing 0.618 grams of heroin.
Scott's defense was that his mother, Darlene Barbella, placed the packets in his jeans pocket without his knowledge; a family friend (Halbersberg) testified to a version of that story.
Barbella gave a written statement supporting the defense but was not called at trial after the court ruled pretrial that the State could impeach her with two prior instances of lying to protect Scott.
The State sought admission of Barbella’s prior false statements to police; the trial court allowed the evidence, reasoning it could be used to impeach her credibility/bias despite N.J.R.E. 608(a)’s general bar on specific-instance impeachment.
The jury convicted Scott of third-degree heroin possession; the court imposed a five-year sentence with 2.5 years parole ineligibility.
On appeal Scott argued (1) the trial court improperly permitted impeachment by specific prior bad acts and (2) the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior specific acts to impeach mother-witness	State: the prior lies show strong bias in favor of her son and are admissible impeachment on bias	Scott: N.J.R.E. 608(a) bars proving a witness’s truthfulness by specific instances of conduct; court erred	Court: admission of prior lies as proof of bias permissible; alternative-basis rule supports ruling; harmless if error
Trial court’s use of Rule 104(a) to relax evidence rules	State: trial court’s ultimate ruling admissible on bias grounds even if analysis differed	Scott: court improperly “relaxed” evidentiary rules to admit specific-instance impeachment	Court: 104(a) cannot be used to create substantive exceptions, but ruling upheld on bias/impeachment grounds
Prejudice from exclusion of Barbella (defense witness choice)	State: even if evidence excluded, mother’s bias could be argued and Halbersberg’s testimony was cumulative	Scott: decision not to call Barbella was induced by erroneous in limine ruling and prejudiced defense	Court: any error was harmless — jury disbelieved corroborating testimony and bias argument could be made in summation
Sentence excessive	State: aggravating factors and defendant’s extensive record justify sentence	Scott: five-year term with 2.5-year parole bar shocks the conscience	Court: sentence not manifestly unreasonable given defendant’s lengthy criminal history and habitual-offender characterization

State v. J.A.C., 210 N.J. 281 (appellate review of evidentiary rulings standard of review)
State v. Herrera, 211 N.J. 308 (Rule 404(b) is generally exclusionary; careful application required)
United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (extrinsic acts admissible to show witness bias)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (limits on cross-examination for bias and factors to restrict inquiry)
State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (sentencing: requirement to state reasons for rejecting mitigating factors)
State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (appellate deference to sentencing determinations)