Case Title: State of New Jersey v. Judel Noel

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-143-97

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). POLLOCK, J., writing for a majority of the Court. The primary issue in this appeal is whether, in the absence of statistical probability evidence, it was error to admit expert testimony concerning the similarity in composition of lead bullets found at the crime scene, in the victim's body, and among Judel Noel's belongings. As Antoine Hargrove was returning to his home in Newark, he was shot in the back. He died several hours later. Two bullets were recovered from his body. At the crime scene, police recovered six 9mm shell casings made by Speer, a cartridge manufacturer, and four spent bullets. Two witnesses saw Noel flee from the scene. Noel was arrested at a pre-parole halfway house. A search of Noel's locker revealed a pouch containing eighteen 9mm bullets, nine manufactured by Speer. At the request of police, Charles Peters, a physical scientist with the materials analysis unit of the FBI, examined all of the bullets. Peters used a process known as inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP), which determines the type and amount of elements other than lead in the bullet. Peters found that many of the bullets recovered were analytically indistinguishable. At trial, Peters testified that bullets that come from the same box have the same composition of lead and those that come from different boxes have different compositions. He explained that the manufacturer fills a box with bullets from the same batch of lead. Peters concluded he would not expect random batches of lead to produce the matches that existed among the subject bullets. The Appellate Division found that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing Peters to testify, absent foundation evidence of statistical probability, about the identical composition of the bullets. One judge dissented, finding that the absence of a statistical foundation affected the weight, not the admissibility of Peters's testimony. The Appellate Division also was split on the issue of the influence exerted by Peters's testimony. The majority believed that his extensive, impressive credentials resulted in an unwarranted enhancement of probative weight. The dissent noted defense counsel's probing cross-examination of the expert, concluding that the testimony merely added another link to the chain of evidence. HELD: There was no error in permitting the expert to testify about the similarity in the composition of the bullets. 1. Statistical evidence has not been a prerequisite to the admission of evidence of matching samples. The production of a large quantity of comparable samples affects the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence. (pp. 6-9) 2. ICP is an accepted method of bullet lead analysis. The resulting evidence increased the probability that the bullets in the victim came from Noel. The defense attempted to undermine that conclusion by cross-examining the expert and showing that thousands of bullets had the same composition. The Court's holding does not preclude an objecting party from offering statistical evidence to rebut the relevance of matching samples. (pp. 9-12) 3. The dissent contends that the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to justify any inference of guilt, and that the State presented the case to the jury as if it had scientific proof that the bullets came from the same box. However, defense counsel made the argument that many boxes contain bullets matching the ones at issue, and vigorously cross-examined Peters. Further, nothing prevented the defense from introducing evidence to contradict Peters's testimony. (pp. 12-15) 4. Peters's testimony did not constitute prejudicial scientific testimony that the bullets came from the same box. It merely provided a link in the chain of evidence connecting Noel to the murder. The statements by the prosecutor concerning the importance of the evidence and to which defense counsel did not object do not justify upsetting the jury verdict. (pp. 15-16) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED. JUSTICE O'HERN, dissenting, is of the view that the prosecutor improperly elevated the circumstantial evidence of matching samples to a false scientific premise, and would affirm the Appellate Division. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, GARIBALDI, and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE POLLOCK's opinion. JUSTICE O'HERN has filed a separate dissenting opinion in which JUSTICE STEIN joins. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDEL NOEL, Defendant-Respondent. Argued September 29, 1998 -- Decided February 10, 1999 On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, opinion is reported at 303 N.J. Super. 435 (1997). Hilary Brunell, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Clifford J. Minor, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney). Paul J. Casteleiro argued the cause for respondent. Nancy A. Hulett, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney). Ruth Bove Carlucci, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Public Defender (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Richard Scott Thompson, argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan, attorneys; Theodore V, Wells, Jr., of counsel; Mr. Thompson and Steven H. Becker, on the brief). The opinion of the Court was delivered by POLLOCK, J. The primary issue is whether, in the absence of statistical probability evidence, the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony concerning the similarity in composition of lead bullets found at the crime scene, in the victim's body, and among defendant's belongings. Finding that statistical evidence was essential, a majority in the Appellate Division reversed the conviction of defendant, Judel Noel, for purposeful or knowing murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. One judge dissented, reasoning that the absence of statistical evidence affected the weight, not the admissibility of the expert testimony. The State appealed as of right. R. 2:2-1(a)(2). We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate the convictions. We hold that statistical probability evidence is not a prerequisite to the admission of expert testimony concerning the composition of lead bullets. At trial, defendant did not object to the first two statements. Not even in the Appellate Division did he challenge them. In overruling defendant's objection in the prosecutor's final statement to the analogy between snowflakes and bullets, the trial court characterized the statement as a "metaphor." In his own closing argument, defense counsel, apparently anticipating the prosecutor's summation, argued that many boxes contain bullets matching the ones at issue. That argument directed the jury's attention to the issue that concerns the dissent, "whether too many bullets were in circulation to justify any real inference of guilt." During the course of the trial, moreover, defense counsel vigorously cross-examined Peters. Finally, nothing prevented defense counsel from introducing evidence contradicting Peters's testimony or from requesting a charge on the jury's use of that testimony if it found the evidence to be unreliable or misleading. Peters did not testify about the probability that the bullets came from defendant's bag. Contrary to the dissent, moreover, his testimony did not constitute prejudicial scientific testimony that the bullets came from the same box. His testimony merely showed that some of the bullets from the crime scene, defendant's bag, and the victim's body contained the same trace elements. As such, the testimony constituted a link in the chain of evidence connecting defendant to the murder. Excessive statements from both sides are a regrettable fact of life in criminal trials. In such trials, an objection by counsel remains as the first line of defense. Although the prosecutor's statement may have been more temperate, it, particularly in the absence of an objection, does not justify upsetting the jury verdict. Given the realities of adversary proceedings, the prosecutor's remarks pass as fair comment. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and defendant's conviction is reinstated. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, GARIBALDI, and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE POLLOCK's opinion. JUSTICE O'HERN has filed a separate dissenting opinion in which JUSTICE STEIN joins. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDEL NOEL, Defendant-Respondent. O'HERN, J., dissenting. In reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division, the Court states the question thus: The primary issue is whether, in the absence of statistical probability evidence, the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony concerning the similarity in composition of lead bullets . . . . Of course the State would not make that argument. Instead, although from a scientifically honest viewpoint one would have to have said that the chance may have been fifty thousand to one, the State was able to suggest to the jury that there was scientific certainty that the bullets came from the same box, even elevating the status of the ballistics expert to a mythical "man in the white coat." This is what the prosecutor said: Finally Mr. Charles Peters of the FBI [the ballistics expert]. I realized that was some sophisticated testimony and I know I personally had trouble following it. But I hope the conclusions are what came clear. It is a very precise scientific process that has been used for, I believe, he said about, about thirty years to test these bullet leads and his testimony is critical to this case because it completely blows away the murder theory advanced by the defense that [the witness] has somehow engineered the murder. Now do you think Mr. Peters [the State's expert] was a liar? He's not a cop. He's not even an FBI agent. Charles Peters is a scientist and he looked like a scientist, didn't he? You could almost see him in a white lab coat. You could see him in math class in a high school in the back. He had all the answers. He's a straight shooter. [He] did not testify beyond what the results of his examination were. [He] didn't try to make it out to be more than what it was, but it is something very critical in this case. Basically, what he told us was that an examination of bullets, whenever a manufacturer is going to run a line of bullets, they order a source of lead from a lead smelter. I asked him if that was like a "batch." He said it was. The scientists like using the word "source." I think it is easier to conceive as a batch of lead. And he said that there are millions, literally millions, of these batches of lead out in circulation and from those millions of batches of lead out in circulation, there are billions of bullets produced each year. The key, I submit to you, is not what Mr. Roberts said it is, not about the number of bullets produced--the number of bullets produced, the key is the number of sources of lead, the number of batches. Millions of batches, each one unique like a snowflake; like a fingerprint. Informing the jury that the lead in some of the bullets found at the crime scene was identical to the lead in some of the bullets seized from Mr. Noel says little more than what the jury already knew, that the bullets were of the same size and came from the same manufacturer. Yet the net effect of the allusions to the "white lab coat," the fingerprint and snowflake comparisons, and the "very precise science" and "he had all the answers" comments was that the State had (as its appellate brief suggests) conclusive scientific evidence that both sets of bullets came from the same box. This was highly prejudicial. Before us, in oral argument, the State insisted that it had never offered the ballistics evidence as proof of a match as in DNA or fingerprinting but merely as a "bit of circumstantial evidence that adds to the State's case." Because that is all that the ballistics evidence established, that explains why defense counsel did not at the end object to it. It was the prosecutor who elevated the status of the proofs to create a false scientific premise. He did not describe Mr. Peters' testimony as merely a "bit of circumstantial evidence." The prosecutor said that the expert testimony "is critical to this case because it completely blows away the murder theory advanced by the defense. . . ." To return to our example of matching Levi's jeans, we must ask whether the State would be able fairly to assert that the fact that a defendant had a pair of pants similar to the perpetrator's would "blow away" an alibi defense. Of course not. It was the elevation here of a "bit of circumstantial evidence" to a false scientific premise that was erroneous. To summarize, the Appellate Division was entirely satisfied that plasma atomic emission spectroscopy of lead bullets is a process adequately accepted by the scientific community and produces sufficiently reliable results to warrant the admission into evidence of expert testimony regarding that test and the results derived therefrom. From that test you can tell whether two bullets are alike, not whether if there are fifty thousand similar bullets, the two in fifty thousand that you are looking at came from the same box. In reversing the defendant's conviction, it was the latter false scientific premise that the Appellate Division condemned. I would affirm its sound judgment. Justice Stein joins in this opinion. NO. A-143 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUDEL NOEL, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED