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 narcotics expert's testimony and the hypothetical question did not constitute plain error, but reversed the sentencing on the mandatory extended term as exceeding the presumptive range and remanded for re‑sentencing. Justice Albin dissented, arguing the expert testimony was plain error and the conviction should be reversed.