assisted the jury’s understanding, in that it showed that
there was not necessarily an answer to the question of the
source of the saliva other than that which their own
common sense suggested.
Generally, expert testimony on credibility is
improper, as credibility is within the ken of the trier of
fact. See also State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. at 341; State v.
Michaels, 136 N.J. 299, 321-22 (1994); State v. J.Q.,
supra; State v. Pasterick, 285 N.J. Super. 607, 620 (1995).
In cases involving child victims, both the State and the
defense can offer expert testimony on the suggestive
capacity of pretrial interview techniques. State v.
Michaels, supra.
Expert testimony on matters of New Jersey law is also
precluded, although it may be permitted on the law of
other jurisdictions. State v. Grimes, 235 N.J. Super. 75,
80 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 118 N.J. 222 (1989); see
also State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. Super. 38, 54 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 60 N.J. 350 (1972). Testimony of opinion
on matters beyond the scope of an expert’s expertise is not
permitted. State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. at 340; In re Hyett,
61 N.J. 518, 531 (1972).
In State v. Jones, 308 N.J. Super. 174 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 156 N.J. 380 (1998), the Appellate
Division upheld the trial court’s preclusion of defense
counsel from arguing that the victim’s hyoid bone was
broken given the lack of evidence on the subject and the
failure of the defense to present expert testimony.
Shaken Baby Syndrome is also a fitting subject for
expert testimony, as it is generally accepted in the
scientific community. State v. Compton, 304 N.J. Super.
477 (App. Div. 1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 51 (1998).
Bite-mark analysis has also gained general acceptance
and is reliable and admissible. State v. Timmendequas,
161 N.J. 515, 624 (1999).
The question of an expert witness’ qualifications is
within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v.
Pemberthy, 224 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
111 N.J. 637 (1988).
With respect to drunkenness, lay testimony is
admissible as in the testimony of police officers and others
who have special experience with intoxicated persons.
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 166 (1964); State v. Hudes,
128 N.J. Super. 589, 608 (Cty. Ct. 1974); State v.
Tiernan, 123 N.J. Super. 322, 326 (Cty. Ct. 1973), rev’d
on other grounds, State v. Tamburro, 68 N.J. 414, 421
(1975).A qualified expert need only determine from a
person’s physical and mental condition, as well as his
conduct as a whole, that he is under the influence of a
narcotic; the expert does not have to specifically identify
the narcotic in question. State v. Tamburro, 68 N.J. 414,
421 (1975).A police officer who is not qualified to testify as an
expert may nonetheless testify as to his opinion with
regard to the comparison of a voice exemplar of a
defendant with a voice in an electronically intercepted
conversation. State v. Perez, 150 N.J. Super. 166, 169-70
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 75 N.J. 542 (1977). See also
State v. Johnson, 138 N.J. Super. 579, 582 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 71 N.J. 340 (1976).This identification by a non-expert police officer of a
voice on an intercepted taped conversation can be based
upon the officer’s hearing the subject’s voice at any time,
including the day of the trial. State v. Carminati, 170 N.J.
Super. 1, 18-19 (App. Div. 1979).A police officer is not qualified to interpret, as an
expert, hospital records presenting results of various tests
conducted upon a sexual assault victim when his only
qualifications are an associate’s degree from a community
college and training in sex crimes analysis and
investigations. State v. Frey, 194 N.J. Super. 326, 332-
333 (App. Div. 1984).In an obscenity prosecution expert testimony may be
received to prove the local community standards. State v.
Napriavnik, 147 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 1977), certif.
denied, 74 N.J. 264 (1977). However, such expert
testimony is not essential to establish the State’s case. Id.When the materials themselves were actually placed
in evidence, the failure to require expert affirmative
evidence that materials were obscene is not error. Paris
Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 56 (1973). See also
State v. Wein, 162 N.J. Super. 159, 168 (App. Div. 1978)
(same).In State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (1984), the Supreme
Court held that expert testimony on battered woman’s
syndrome was relevant to the reasonableness of the
defendant’s belief that she was in imminent danger of
death or serious injury.