## Facts

- Detective Michael Lohman suspected that Terrance Johnson was involved in drug activity at a liquor store.
- Lohman and other officers executed a search warrant at the store.
- During the search, officers found rock cocaine and crack cocaine.
- Officers also recovered items commonly associated with cocaine use and sales, including a razor blade, glass tubes, wire mesh, small plastic bags, and several scales.
- The State charged Johnson with possession with intent to distribute narcotics and attempted possession with intent to distribute narcotics.
- At trial, the court allowed officer Harry O’Neal to testify as an expert witness on identifying drug paraphernalia and on the use, packaging, and distribution of cocaine.
- O’Neal testified that he had worked as a narcotics detective for 12 years, participated in thousands of narcotics arrests, and interviewed many drug users and drug dealers.
- O’Neal testified about the amount of cocaine recovered and explained that the scales were the type commonly used to weigh narcotics before packaging; he also described how the other items were commonly used to make crack pipes or package drugs for sale.
- The jury found Johnson guilty.
- On appeal, Johnson argued the trial court erred by allowing O’Neal to testify that the items found were “consistent with” narcotics distribution because intent to distribute was an ultimate issue for the jury.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by admitting a narcotics officer’s expert opinion that the drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the liquor store were consistent with narcotics distribution, given that intent to distribute was an ultimate issue in the case?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed Johnson’s conviction.
- The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing O’Neal’s expert testimony that the evidence was consistent with drug distribution.
- The court concluded that the testimony assisted the jury in understanding drug packaging and distribution practices and did not improperly decide Johnson’s intent for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A qualified witness with specialized training and experience in narcotics investigations may testify as an expert about drug use, packaging, distribution methods, and the identification of paraphernalia.
- Expert testimony may address whether physical evidence and surrounding circumstances are consistent with drug distribution, because that type of opinion can help the factfinder interpret items not commonly understood by lay jurors.
- An expert may not simply announce that a defendant had the required mental state as a fact, but an opinion framed in terms of consistency with distribution does not, by itself, remove the intent question from the jury.

## Conclusion

State v. Johnson affirmed Johnson’s conviction after concluding that the trial court properly admitted a narcotics officer’s expert testimony explaining the significance of the cocaine and paraphernalia found in the liquor store and opining that those items were consistent with distribution, which aided the jury without improperly determining Johnson’s intent.


State v. Johnson, 780 So. 2d 403 (2000)