State v. Yasin Simms(074209), 133 A.3d 609

Background

Police surveillance near Atlantic City public housing observed a silver car and a red car pull up nose-to-nose; Detective Ruzzo saw defendant lean into the silver car and hand "an object" in apparent exchange for currency. Ten heroin packets were later found in the silver car; thirteen similarly stamped packets were found on the red-car passenger (co-defendant Butcher). Police recovered a $100 bill and $56 from defendant.
At trial the State presented Detective Kevin Lockett as a narcotics-distribution expert and asked a lengthy hypothetical that assumed as fact the contested detail that defendant handed ten packets of heroin to the silver-car driver for $100.
The expert opined the co-defendant’s 13 bags were consistent with distribution and stated she "may have conspired with the male," effectively implicating defendant; defense made no objection to the hypothetical or the response.
The jury convicted defendant of multiple possession and distribution offenses (including enhanced counts for school-zone and public-housing proximity), but acquitted on a separate conspiracy count; Appellate Division affirmed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, considered prior jurisprudence on expert testimony and hypotheticals in drug cases, and reversed: holding the prosecutor’s hypothetical and the expert’s ultimate-issue testimony improperly invaded the jury’s role and unfairly bolstered the State’s case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer testimony that a "C.D.S. transaction" was taking place was improper opinion on an ultimate issue	State: the radio call was fact testimony describing events, not an opinion	Simms: the call amounted to impermissible ultimate-issue opinion for the jury to decide	Court: such characterizations violated McLean principles; jurors could decide straightforward facts without expert assistance
Whether a prosecutor’s hypothetical that assumed defendant handed ten heroin packets (a contested fact) to elicit an expert opinion was permissible	State: conceded slight overreach but argued no plain error because no objection and harmlessness	Simms: hypothetical assumed a hotly contested, dispositive fact and undermined the jury’s factfinding role	Court: the hypothetical improperly assumed contested facts and usurped the jury’s role; reversible error
Whether the expert’s statement that co-defendant "may have conspired with the male" was acceptable	State: expert may testify about patterns of drug distribution based on general knowledge	Simms: opinion effectively declared guilt by mimicking conspiracy statutory language and prejudiced him	Court: expert’s ultimate-issue conspiracy opinion intruded on jury function and bolstered State’s case; impermissible
Proper role and limits of hypotheticals/expert testimony in drug cases	State/AG: hypotheticals can synthesize facts and help jurors understand distribution indicia if carefully crafted	Simms: extensive hypotheticals that summarize disputed facts improperly bolster prosecution	Court: hypotheticals ok when limited and used to assume facts for analysis, but not to summarize contested facts or elicit ultimate-issue opinions; experts cannot declare guilt

Key Cases Cited

State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (officer opinion about occurrence of a drug transaction impermissible in simple cases)
State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (expert testimony should be limited to matters beyond juror understanding)
State v. Sowell, 213 N.J. 89 (prosecutor may not use a hypothetical to summarize disputed evidence and elicit an expert’s opinion about what happened)
State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280 (expert testimony that mimics statutory elements and amounts to a pronouncement of guilt is improper)
State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131 (cumulative legal errors that render a trial unfair require reversal)
United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436 (expert testimony on drug logos and packaging can explain significance of markings)