State v. Odo

116 N.J. 65, 560 A.2d 1198 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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.