State v. Thomas L. Scott (077434) (Monmouth and Statewide), 163 A.3d 325

Background

Defendant Thomas Scott was charged with third-degree heroin possession after two packets were found in the pocket of jeans he put on after showering; he claimed he did not knowingly possess the drugs.
Defense proffered defendant’s mother, Darlene Barbella, to testify that she found the heroin near a drug-using cousin (Jordan), placed the packets in jeans she believed belonged to Jordan, and left; another defense witness (Lauren Halbersberg) testified to substantially the same events at trial.
The State sought to cross-examine Barbella about two prior occasions when she allegedly lied to police to protect defendant; the trial court ruled that prior-acts impeachment was admissible in limine, invoking Rule 608 and Rule 104.
Defendant declined to call Barbella at trial, relying instead on Halbersberg’s testimony; defendant was convicted and sentenced.
The Appellate Division affirmed, treating the proffered prior-acts evidence as admissible to show bias and alternatively finding any error harmless; the Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Scott)	Held
Whether the State could cross-examine Barbella about two prior lies to police as evidence of bias	Prior false statements probative of bias toward defendant and therefore admissible impeachment	Prior specific-act impeachment is barred by N.J.R.E. 608/405 and unrelated to permissible bias inquiry; admission violated evidentiary and constitutional protections	Reversed: prior-acts evidence was not probative of bias and inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 403 and 608
Whether the proffered prior-acts evidence could be admitted under N.J.R.E. 404(b) / needed a Cofield hearing	Evidence shows recent conduct bearing on witness credibility; Cofield analysis (if relevant) would support admission	404(b) inapplicable; State should have sought Cofield hearing; Rule 608 (not 404(b)) governs character-for-truthfulness impeachment	404(b) inapplicable; court need not reach Cofield; Rule 608 bars use of specific-instance conduct to prove truthfulness trait
Whether the Appellate Division could rely on the State’s new-on-appeal bias theory	Bias rationale is supported by record and may be reviewed on appeal	Appellate Division improperly entertained a new theory not squarely preserved for appeal	Court allowed review of bias theory here because record was developed and not “barren,” but found the prior-acts evidence still not probative of bias
Whether the trial court’s evidentiary error was harmless	Any error was harmless: the defense theory was implausible, Halbersberg’s testimony was essentially duplicative, and Barbella’s testimony would not have altered the verdict	Excluding Barbella was harmful because she was a central, corroborative witness and the jury was deprived of assessing her demeanor; error could have affected outcome	Error was harmful: exclusion prevented the jury from evaluating defendant’s key corroborating witness; conviction reversed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984) (witness-party relationship and shared affiliations can be probative of bias)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (Rule 404(b) and procedure for admitting other-act evidence)
State v. Guenther, 181 N.J. 129 (2004) (history and rationale for limitations on specific-instance impeachment under N.J.R.E. 608)
State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232 (2010) (exclusion of critical defense evidence is ordinarily not harmless)
State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (1984) (exclusion of otherwise admissible testimony central to defense cannot be harmless)
State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015) (preservation and appellate consideration of new legal theories when the record is barren or developed)