Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State v. Jones a5186-10

State v. Jones a5186-10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Benjamin Kelsen
[04/17/12 - 10:53 pm] This morning, in a case captioned State v. Jones, the Appellate Division ruled that an expert opinion related to the possession of cocaine by the defendant with intent to distribute cocaine was improper because it was expressed in a manner directly commenting on the defendant's guilt. Generally, the opinion of an expert in a drug distribution case should be expressed in hypothetical terms. However, in Jones, the expert specifically used the defendant by name in his testimony and expressed a direct opinion as to defendant's obvious guilt. The Appellate Division found this to be plain error and vacated defendant's conviction. This case provides an excellent review of the parameters for the use of expert testimony in a criminal drug distribution prosecution.
[04/17/12 - 10:53 pm] This morning, in a case captioned State v. Jones, the Appellate Division ruled that an expert opinion related to the possession of cocaine by the defendant with intent to distribute cocaine was improper because it was expressed in a manner directly commenting on the defendant's guilt. Generally, the opinion of an expert in a drug distribution case should be expressed in hypothetical terms. However, in Jones, the expert specifically used the defendant by name in his testimony and expressed a direct opinion as to defendant's obvious guilt. The Appellate Division found this to be plain error and vacated defendant's conviction. This case provides an excellent review of the parameters for the use of expert testimony in a criminal drug distribution prosecution.

More info:

Published by: Benjamin Kelsen on Apr 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-5186-10T2STATE OF NEW JERSEY,Plaintiff-Respondent,v.RONALD L. JONES, JR.,a/k/a Ronald L. Jones,Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Submitted March 27, 2012 - DecidedBefore Judges Baxter, Nugent and Carchman.On appeal from the Superior Court of NewJersey, Law Division, Salem County,Indictment No. 10-04-0139.Law Office of Wayne Powell,
 
L.L.C., attorneysfor appellant (Wallace R. Wade, on thebrief).John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor,attorney for respondent (Lisa M. Riether,Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on thebrief).The opinion of the court was delivered byBAXTER, J.A.D.In this appeal from his conviction on charges of possessionof cocaine with intent to distribute, defendant challenges theadmission of other-crime evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b),
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATIONApril 17, 2012APPELLATE DIVISION
April 17, 2012
 
A-5186-10T2
2asserting that the admission of evidence that he also possessedoxycodone was unfairly prejudicial in light of the fact that he was not charged with that offense. He asserts that theoxycodone testimony established nothing other than the criminalpropensity that N.J.R.E. 404(b) forbids. We agree withdefendant's contention, and hold that where the oxycodoneevidence was admitted for the ostensible purpose of aiding thejury in determining whether defendant possessed the cocaine forpersonal use, or instead with the intention of selling it, theprobative value of the oxycodone evidence was outweighed by itsprejudice, thereby requiring its exclusion. The error wascompounded by a limiting instruction that failed to advise thejury of any permissible purpose for which the oxycodone evidencecould be used.Defendant's right to a fair trial was further eroded by theadmission of expert testimony on drug distribution that violatedthe proscriptions applicable to such testimony, as thequestions were not posed in hypothetical format, theexpert repeatedly referred to defendant by name, theexpert's opinion was phrased in language identical tothe title of the criminal statute, and the expertimpermissibly expressed an opinion on defendant's guilt.We reverse defendant's conviction and remand for
 
A-5186-10T2
3a new trial, as these errors were clearly capable of producingan unjust result.I.On January 22, 2010, Detective Darryl Saunders of the Salem County Prosecutor's Office apprehended defendant while defendant was walking on Broadway in Salem. Saunders testified that headvised defendant that he, Saunders, had obtained a search warrant authorizing a search of defendant's person. At theSalem police station, Saunders escorted defendant to thebathroom, and directed him to remove his clothing. Oncedefendant disrobed, Saunders located ninety-nine bags ofcocaine, and four oxycodone pills, in defendant's groin area.The State also called Lieutenant Timothy Haslett of theSalem County Prosecutor's Office. Haslett explained that he hadbeen employed in the narcotics field for approximately tenyears, had received advanced training in narcotics and narcoticsdistribution, and had been qualified as an expert in that fieldon numerous occasions. The judge permitted him to provideexpert testimony on narcotics distribution. Because it isHaslett's testimony that gives rise to the claims defendantpresents on appeal, we describe that testimony in some detail.At the outset of Haslett's testimony, the prosecutor askedHaslett to render an opinion on whether the ninety-eight bags of

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->