STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF L.B. (FJ-20-0541-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2021 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1227-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN
THE INTEREST OF L.B.,
a Juvenile.
___________________________
Argued February 23, 2021 – Decided March 29, 2021
Before Judges Yannotti, Mawla, and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County,
Docket No. FJ-20-0541-18.
Candace Caruthers, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for appellant L.B. (Joseph E.
Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Candace
Caruthers, of counsel and on the briefs).
Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent State of New Jersey (Lyndsay V.
Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney;
Milton S. Leibowitz, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
L.B. appeals from a January 16, 2019 adjudication on offenses, which if
committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree unlawful possession of
a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) (count one); fourth-degree possession of
hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f) (count two); second-degree
possession of a firearm while possessing a controlled dangerous substance
(CDS) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a) (count three); third-
degree possession of a CDS and possession with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-10(a)(1) (counts six and seven); third-degree possession of a CDS and
possession of a CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) (counts
eight and nine); two counts second-degree possession of CDS with intent to
distribute within 500 feet of a public park, N.J.S.A. 2C:35:7.1(a) (count s ten
and eleven); two counts third-degree possession of CDS with intent to
distribute within 1000 feet of a school, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a) (counts twelve and
fourteen); third-degree possession with intent to distribute a prescription
legend drug, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10.5 (count fifteen); third-degree possession with
intent to distribute an imitation CDS, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-11(a)(3) (count sixteen);
and disorderly persons offenses of obstruction, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) (count
four); and possession of a CDS (marijuana), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4) (count
thirteen). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and reverse and remand in part.
The trial in this matter was originally scheduled for June 2018. A month
prior, the trial judge granted the State's motion to obtain a buccal swab from
A-1227-19
2
L.B. and his co-defendant A.W. to test for DNA on a handgun found in a room
where they were arrested. The State's DNA expert produced a report linking
L.B. to the gun. As a result, defense counsel requested an adjournment of the
trial in order to obtain a forensic expert to analyze the DNA. Defense counsel
noted she "received a voluminous packet [the first day of trial] of . . . lab notes
and some other information from the State" that she wished to review. A.W.'s
counsel joined in the adjournment request, and the State did not object. The
trial was adjourned to January 2019.
When the matter returned for trial, L.B.'s counsel addressed the trial
judge before opening statements and stated:
The [c]ourt's aware that in this case something that is
going to come up [is] DNA results. That's the swabs
taken of [L.B.] And . . . there were some DNA results
that resulted from the testing that was done on the
gun.
I had wanted to get an expert in the case for a
few reasons. One is that . . . it's always good to have
one. And two, the software that was used in this case
is STRmix.[1] It's my understanding that only recently
did Union County start using this brand new software
1
"STRmix™ is expert forensic software, developed by ESR and Forensic
Science South Australia . . . , that can resolve previously unresolvable mixed
DNA profiles. . . . STRmix™ software combines biological modelling and
mathematical processes to achieve results not possible with traditional DNA
interpretation methods." ESR, https://www.esr.cri.nz/our-services/products-
and-tools/strmix (last visited Feb. 26, 2021).
A-1227-19
3
program. In the past had there been a complex
mixture, which is what is going to come up in this
case, with a number of people, the contributors that
were on that mixture, this case would have been
thrown out prior to something like STRmix existing.
So for that reason I wanted to get an expert. I
was in touch with my supervisors and I've been in
touch with people in Trenton. And I was able to find
someone named . . . Nate Adams, who works for Bio-
forensics. And I had been in touch with him
throughout the course of the call. However, he wasn't
vendor compliant with our office. And because it was
an S corporation, they had shareholders in [fifty]
states. He was not able to become vendor compliant
until the end of November, leaving him not enough
time to prep this case and testify as a witness in this
trial.
The [c]ourt has given me a lot of time. I
understand that. It has been seven months since I
indicated that I did need this expert. But given that
the new software is being used and the fact that . . .
this is kind of outside of my control because we've got
a compliance issue, I wanted to put that on the record
because I think it goes directly to my client's [Sixth]
Amendment right to confrontation.
In response, the judge stated:
The [c]ourt understands in this matter that . . . part of
the State's case rests on DNA evidence and expert
testimony. That came to the [c]ourt's attention back in
June of 2018. Motions were filed, buccal swabs were
taken, DNA tests were performed. That information
was turned over quite early at that time to the
[d]efense.
A-1227-19
4
The [d]efense has had seven months to obtain an
expert. I understand the [d]efense's statements that
this is a new test and they located one person. And
the Public Defender's Office has to go through the
procurement process. It's been seven months. It's
more than ample time to acquire that.
. . . [T]he [c]ourt's dockets cannot be held up on
defendants constantly coming up with ["]well we got
another matter here, another matter here.["] Certainly
. . . and I don't put this on the attorneys before me
because it's not partially their problem. They work for
the Public Defender's Office, which has to go through
certain procedures.
But in any other case a private attorney and so
forth, they would be given a little . . . amount of time
to go and get that [expert] . . . . He'd need to pay him
and bring him in or not. We don't leave an open-
ended matter here when the trial was scheduled in this
case, quite some time ago, back in September or so.
And it was scheduled and the [d]efense was told to go
get it fixed. If you need the expert, get him. I gave
you plenty of time to do so. You do not have it at this
time.
So the matter is going to proceed. I understand
the [d]efense's argument, but . . . the need to get an
expert is not an open-ended need that you have a[n]
unlimited amount of time to do so. There has to be a
finite time to do so. The [c]ourt has to proceed.
Otherwise the . . . juveniles' rights to a speedy trial are
also affected because they're sitting waiting, [A.W.] in
particular has been sitting in detention for some
months waiting for this matter to proceed.
A-1227-19
5
The trial proceeded over the course of four days during which the State
presented six witnesses, including fact witnesses and three expert witnesses.
We take the following facts from the trial record.
On January 23, 2018, Officer Scott Pavonis, and Detectives Luis Garcia
and Athanasios Mikros, responded to a rooming house in Elizabeth. The
owner of the building had previously provided a key to the building to police
to monitor its common areas, which police used to enter the building.
Detective Garcia testified that as he entered the vestibule of the building, he
saw "a person to the left by the window, . . . wearing all red with long dreads.
Then [he] saw another gentleman next to him to his left. He . . . had a
[m]ohawk haircut. . . . And there was another person closest to the staircase
. . . [a]nd he had . . . a twisty hairstyle." The three individuals were later
identified as Jaquil Ellison, A.W., and L.B.
After Detective Garcia entered the building he yelled "Elizabeth Police,
Elizabeth Police," and L.B. looked at the officers, "placed . . . his right hand
and secured a black object [on the] . . . right side of his waistband area . . .
[a]nd . . . immediately took off up the stairs." Ellison and A.W. followed L.B.
up the stairs. All three officers followed and "once [Ellison, A.W. and L.B.]
got to the second floor landing[,] they went into room four." When Officer
A-1227-19
6
Pavonis tried to open the door it was locked. Detective Garcia knocked the
door down.
The officers entered and Detective Garcia "smelled a strong odor of raw
marijuana in the room." The officers turned on the lights and saw three men
and a woman who was renting the room, laying with their eyes closed. The
officers handcuffed the room's occupants. As Detective Garcia searched L.B.
he observed a nine-millimeter handgun in a nearby cubbyhole, which was later
found to be loaded with six live rounds. Officers found baggies of cocaine on
A.W., and heroin on Ellison. A search of the room yielded quinine, cocaine,
and marijuana.
The State also called Sergeant Krsysztof Audinis as an expert in the field
of forensic firearm identification and Detective Anthony Reimer as an expert
in the field of narcotics and narcotics distribution. Sergeant Audinis testified
the firearm was operable. Detective Reimer explained the differences between
crack and powder cocaine; how they are ingested, packaged, and priced; and
the use of quinine. He also explained why the drugs discovered were not for
personal use and were meant for distribution.
Monica Ghannam testified on behalf of the State as a forensic DNA
analysis expert. She utilized the STRmix computer program to analyze swabs
A-1227-19
7
from the gun's trigger, slide, frame, and magazine. She opined the STRmix
results showed "it [was] approximately 107,000 times more likely that the
DNA is a mixture of [L.B.'s] and three unknown individuals than a mixture of
DNA from four unknown individuals."
The trial judge concluded the State had proven "all the charges alleged
in this matter" beyond a reasonable doubt against L.B. 2 He found all of the
State's witnesses "direct and credible." The judge made the following
findings:
The State has proved that [L.B.] was in the vestibule.
When he saw the police officers, he placed his hand
on a black object in his waistband. And in defiance of
orders, ran upstairs. He was visible to the officers.
Never took his hand off the object in his waistband.
And he entered . . . Room [Four].
When the police entered the room, he was on the
floor pretending to be sleeping. By him was the
cutout in the wall in which was a loaded nine
millimeter handgun. . . . [T]he handgun was a black
item, which the State has shown to be the black item
in his waistband, by the testimony.
DNA shows that [L.B.] is strongly found to be
in possession of the weapon.
....
2
A.W. was tried together with L.B. and was likewise adjudicated on all
charges.
A-1227-19
8
. . . His DNA was on it and on the magazine.
He was also in the room with the codefendants
who were each in possession of . . . various CDS's.
Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, prescription alleging
quinine, which was . . . on the person of the adult
codefendant . . . and in the mattress.
The amount of CDS was identified as an amount
which would not be . . . for personal use, but was . . .
packaged and in amounts that was normally associated
with distribution and sale. It was construed in the
totality of the facts to be in his possession as a
codefendant with the others in the enterprise of
distribution.
As all parties were together in the vestibule and
in the room, the drugs were easily within the reach –
particularly, the ones in the mattress and on the . . .
dresser . . . were easily within the reach of [L.B.].
The judge placed L.B. on probation for three years with eighteen months
participation in the Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program followed by an
additional eighteen months' probation.
L.B. raises the following points on appeal:
POINT I – THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY
REFUSED TO GRANT THE JUVENILE'S DNA
EXPERT FURTHER TIME TO PREPARE FOR
TRIAL, THEREBY DENYING THE JUVENILE OF
HIS RIGHTS TO PRESENT WITNESSES IN HIS
DEFENSE AND EFFECTIVELY CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM.
A-1227-19
9
A. Reversal is Required Because the
Juvenile's DNA Expert Was Necessary for Him
to Present a Complete Defense and Effectively
Challenge the State's Most Important Evidence.
i. The Trial Court Improperly Denied
L.B.'s Expert Additional Time to Prepare
for Trial.
ii. The Trial Court's Erroneous
Decision Was Harmful Because the
Expert Would Have Provided Favorable
and Indispensable Testimony about the
Novel Probabilistic Genotyping Software.
B. Alternatively, this Court Should Remand
for a Frye Hearing to Determine Whether the
STRmix Software is Reliable.
POINT II – THE STATE'S DRUG EXPERT'S
TESTIMONY VIOLATED THE HOLDINGS OF
STATE V. CAIN AND STATE V. SIMMS BY
OPINING DIRECTLY ON THE JUVENILE'S
INTENT, WHICH WAS AN ULTIMATE ISSUE OF
FACT SOLELY FOR THE FACT-FINDER,
REQUIRING REVERSAL. (Not Raised Below).
POINT III – THE MAXIMUM PROBATIONARY
TERM OF THREE YEARS IMPOSED BY THE
COURT WAS EXCESSIVE AND REMAND IS
REQUIRED.
Our standard of review in juvenile delinquency bench trials "is narrow
and is limited to the evaluation of whether the trial judge's findings are
supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record as a whole." State in
A-1227-19
10
the Int. of J.P.F., 368 N.J. Super. 24, 31 (App. Div. 2004). "Although we defer
to the trial court's findings of fact, especially when credibility determinations
are involved, we do not defer on questions of law." N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam.
Servs. v. V.T., 423 N.J. Super. 320, 331 (App. Div. 2011) (citing N.J. Div. of
Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.L., 388 N.J. Super. 81, 88-89 (App. Div. 2006)).
I.
Adjournment decisions due to the unavailability of an expert witness lie
within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless there is
an abuse of discretion. Kosmowski v. Atlantic City Med. Ctr., 175 N.J. 568,
574 (2003). Whether there was an abuse of discretion depends on the amount
of prejudice the aggrieved party suffered. State v. Smith, 66 N.J. Super. 465,
468 (App. Div. 1961); see also State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522, 537 (2011)
(holding an appellate court will reverse for failure to grant an adjournment
only if the trial court abused its discretion, causing a party a "manifest wrong
or injury.").
If the aggrieved party is unable to fully present his case as a result of the
denial of an adjournment, then his or her substantial rights were infringed.
Pepe v. Urban, 11 N.J. Super. 385, 389 (App. Div. 1951). "No eagerness to
expedite business, or to utilize fully the court's time, should be permitted to
A-1227-19
11
interfere with [the court's] high duty of administering justice in the individual
case." Id. at 389. Reversal is not warranted for a refusal to grant an
adjournment "unless an injustice has been done." Nadel v. Bergamo, 160 N.J.
Super. 213, 218 (App. Div. 1978).
Furthermore, "[b]oth the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution
guarantee to the accused the right 'to have a compulsory process for obta ining
witnesses in his favor.'" State v. Garcia, 195 N.J. 192, 201-02 (2008). Both
"guarantee criminal defendants 'a meaningful opportunity to present a
complete defense.'" State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147, 168 (2003) (quoting Crane
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986)). "Indeed, the right of an accused to
present witnesses in his own defense 'is a fundamental element of due process
of law.'" Garcia, 195 N.J. at 202 (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409
(1988)); see also State v. Sanchez, 143 N.J. 273, 290 (1996) ("[F]ew rights are
more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own
defense." (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973))).
As we noted, the trial judge reasoned he could not grant a second
adjournment because: there were speedy trial concerns; defense counsel was
afforded seven months to obtain an expert; the court could not permit its
A-1227-19
12
calendar to be delayed; and litigants represented by assigned counsel should be
treated the same as those who have private counsel and required to have their
experts ready for trial. These reasons are unpersuasive.
Although we appreciate the judge's desire to move cases in an
expeditious manner, this usurped L.B.'s fundamental right to mount a defense,
which could have changed the outcome. Furthermore, the speedy trial
argument was primarily L.B.'s to make. We understand the Public Defender
should not be treated differently than private counsel, however, as L.B.'s
counsel explained the process for retaining an expert utilizing public funds is
entirely dissimilar to a litigant who can afford to retain private defense counsel
and an expert. See Vendor Contract Compliance Requirements, NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER (2019),
https://www.nj.gov/defender/documents/Waiver%20VCC%
20Requirements%20%2003-19-2019.pdf (articulating a detailed six step
process required by the Department of Treasury for qualification of vendors
capable of conducting business with the Office of the Public Defender). The
record lacks any evidence defense counsel was lackadaisical in her efforts to
retain a forensic DNA expert who was vendor compliant.
A-1227-19
13
For these reasons, we reverse the adjudications related to the gun
charges. However, we reject L.B.'s argument a reversal of the gun charges
warrants reversal of the drug charges. Ghannam's testimony pertained solely
to the handgun. Neither the State's presentation nor the judge's findings
correlated the DNA evidence to the drug charges.
II.
For the first time on appeal, L.B. challenges Detective Reimer's expert
testimony relating to the CDS distribution. Detective Reimer was qualified as
an expert in the field of narcotics and narcotics distribution without objection.
He testified the drug amounts seized and the lack of paraphernalia in the room
where police discovered the drugs signified the drugs were not for personal
use, but instead for distribution. He also stated the presence of more than one
type of drug, namely, heroin and cocaine, also signified a distribution
operation and L.B. and his co-defendants were operating "like a convenience
store" offering "something for everybody" to "increase[] . . . the amount of
profits they could potentially gain."
N.J.R.E. 702 states "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
A-1227-19
14
experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an op inion
or otherwise." To satisfy N.J.R.E. 702,
the proponent of expert evidence must establish . . .
(1) the subject matter of the testimony must be
"beyond the ken of the average juror"; (2) the field of
inquiry "must be at a state of the art such that an
expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable"; and
(3) "the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer
the" testimony.
[State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265, 280 (2018) (quoting
State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 208 (1984)).]
An expert witness may not opine on a defendant's state of mind because
whether a defendant possessed a CDS with the intent to distribute is an
ultimate issue of fact. State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410, 427 (2016). In State v.
Odom, the State presented a police detective as an expert witness who testified
the defendant was in possession of a bag containing eighteen vials of crack
cocaine with the intent to distribute. 116 N.J. 65, 68 (1989). Our Supreme
Court upheld the drug distribution conviction, holding "as long as the expert
does not express his opinion of defendant's guilt but simply characterizes
defendant's conduct based on the facts in evidence in light of his specialized
knowledge, the opinion is not objectionable even though it embraces ultimate
issues that the jury must decide." Id. at 79.
A-1227-19
15
Detective Reimer's testimony was detailed and grounded in his
experience of having conducted over 100 narcotics arrests as a member of a
narcotics strike force "assigned daily to engage in investigations [involving]
narcotics related crimes, [such as] dealing, distribution, street level sales, mid-
level sales and upper level sales." The purpose of his testimony was to inform
the court why the amount and types of the drugs discovered in the room and
the absence of paraphernalia evidenced distribution rather than personal
consumption of CDS. Although this testimony may have embraced the
ultimate issue the judge was to decide, it was not an opinion of L.B.'s guilt.
III.
Finally, we do not reach the disposition-related arguments raised by L.B.
as his final disposition must abide the outcome of the remanded gun charges.
However, the parties agree the adjudication under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4)
must be vacated as a result of the passage of A. 1897 (2021). Therefore, this
aspect of the adjudication is vacated.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed and remanded in part.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-1227-19
16