## Facts

- In January 2010, prosecutors obtained wiretap orders as part of an investigation into cocaine distribution targeting phones used by Daniel Rogers and Travell Nickey.
- In early February 2010, intercepted calls indicated Elex Hyman agreed to purchase 200 grams of cocaine from Rogers, with Nickey sometimes acting as an intermediary.
- Intercepts suggested Rogers planned to deliver 100 grams of cocaine to Hyman’s home; officers surveilled Rogers arriving and briefly meeting Hyman outside the residence.
- On February 20, 2010, officers executed a search warrant at Hyman’s home and seized 50.5 grams of cocaine, the wiretapped phone, a money counter, a digital scale, and over $3,000 in cash.
- After receiving Miranda warnings, Hyman admitted the cocaine found in the home was his.
- Hyman was tried separately from other alleged co-conspirators and convicted of second-degree possession with intent to distribute cocaine and second-degree conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
- At trial, the lead detective interpreted coded drug terms from the wiretaps (e.g., “buck” as 100 grams; “up top” as New York) based on training, experience, and knowledge of the investigation; the court admitted the testimony as lay opinion rather than qualifying the detective as an expert.

## Issues

1. Whether the detective’s interpretations of drug slang and coded terms in intercepted conversations were admissible as lay opinion under N.J.R.E. 701 or instead constituted expert opinion requiring admission under N.J.R.E. 702.
2. If the testimony was improperly admitted as lay opinion, whether the error was harmless or required reversal of the convictions.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division held the detective’s interpretations were in the nature of expert opinion and should not have been admitted as lay opinion under N.J.R.E. 701.
- The court found the trial court erred by allowing the interpretive testimony without treating it as expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702.
- The court concluded the error was harmless because the detective had sufficient qualifications to testify as an expert and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
- The convictions were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Lay opinion under N.J.R.E. 701 must be rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding testimony or deciding a fact in issue.
- Expert opinion under N.J.R.E. 702 is required when testimony relies on specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education beyond ordinary juror understanding.
- Police interpretation of drug jargon and coded language commonly depends on specialized narcotics-investigation knowledge and is generally expert in character, not lay opinion.
- Misclassifying expert interpretive testimony as lay opinion can be harmless error where the witness is demonstrably qualified as an expert and independent evidence strongly supports guilt.

## Conclusion

The court determined that a detective’s decoding of drug slang from wiretapped calls is expert-type testimony that should be presented under N.J.R.E. 702, but affirmed Hyman’s convictions because the detective could have been qualified as an expert and the remaining proof—wiretaps, surveillance, seized drugs and paraphernalia, cash, and Hyman’s admission—rendered the evidentiary error harmless.


State v. Hyman, 451 N.J. Super. 429, 168 A.3d 1194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017)