## Facts

- Police executed a search warrant on January 31, 1986, at an attic apartment in Paterson, New Jersey, and found Ernest Odom and a juvenile inside.
- Detectives located a clear plastic bag containing eighteen vials of crack cocaine in a pillowcase on a bed.
- No other drugs or drug paraphernalia were found.
- Odom was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- At trial, the State offered Detective Sergeant Ronald Tierney as an expert in illegal narcotics.
- Over objection, the trial court qualified Tierney as an expert and allowed him to answer a hypothetical mirroring the evidence.
- Tierney opined that, assuming those facts, the cocaine was possessed for distribution rather than personal use.
- Odom contended the cocaine was for personal use.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a drug prosecution, a qualified police expert may testify—based on a hypothetical that tracks the proofs—that the manner of possession indicates intent to distribute rather than personal use.
2. Whether such testimony improperly decides the ultimate issue and invades the jury’s role.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division’s exclusionary approach and reinstated the conviction.
- The court held expert opinion testimony may address whether drug-related facts are consistent with distribution, if the subject is beyond common juror understanding, the witness is qualified, and the testimony is presented to assist factfinding rather than to declare guilt.
- The court approved the use of hypotheticals to tie the opinion to assumed facts and to preserve the jury’s responsibility to decide whether those facts were proven.
- The court cautioned that the expert may not directly state that the defendant is guilty; trial courts should structure the testimony and instruct jurors to ensure they remain the ultimate decisionmakers.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible when it concerns a relevant subject beyond the understanding of average jurors and will help the jury understand the evidence and determine facts, provided the witness has sufficient specialized knowledge (N.J. Evidence Rule 56(2)).
- In narcotics cases, expert testimony may explain the evidentiary significance of quantity, packaging, and absence or presence of paraphernalia as indicators of distribution versus personal use.
- Opinion testimony may track statutory concepts (such as “intent to distribute”) when it aids the jury, but it must not amount to a direct opinion on the defendant’s guilt.
- Hypothetical questions are a proper method to present such opinions because the jury must decide whether the assumed facts are established and whether to accept the inference.

## Conclusion

The court held that properly qualified police experts may opine, using hypotheticals grounded in the proofs, that drug quantity and packaging are consistent with intent to distribute, so long as the testimony assists the jury and does not directly declare the defendant guilty.


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