STATE V. ODOM 116 N.J. 65, 560 A.2d 1198 (1989) CASE BRIEF

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner