State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Anthony Nesbitt, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the admission of the narcotics expert's testimony and the hypothetical question did not constitute error, but reversed the sentencing on the mandatory extended term as exceeding the presumptive range and remanded for re‑sentencing. Justice Albin dissented, arguing that the expert testimony was plain error and should have led to reversal.