STATE V. ODOM
116 N.J. 65, 560 A.2d 1198 (1989)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of controlled
substances with intent to distribute. State (P) appealed an order that reversed a conviction
for possession of controlled dangerous substances with the intention to distribute. The
court held that the testimony of a police officer, dually qualified as an expert, related
directly on the issue of ultimate guilt of Odom (D) and was not admissible into evidence
under N.J. Evid. R. 56(2).
FACTS: Odom (D) was arrested after the police executed a search warrant on his home and
found a bag containing 18 vials of crack cocaine. At his trial for possession with intent to
distribute, D testified that he was a crack addict and had purchased all 18 vials for
personal consumption. The pipes which he claimed he used to smoke the crack were not found
in the search. The state presented the testimony of Officer Tierney, after qualifying him as
an expert in illegal narcotics. Tierney testified on the basis of hypothetical facts which
were analogous to the facts of the case that, in his opinion, the crack seized was possessed
with intent to distribute. Although Tierney stated the basis for his opinion, D appealed his
guilty verdict. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding that an expert is
precluded from expressing an opinion regarding an accused's intent to distribute, because
such intent constitutes a determination of the truth of the charge.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment