for and admissibility of expert testimony are matters to be determined within the sound exercise of discretion by the trial court. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 414, 548 A.2d 1022. Reported opinions in New Jersey have not previously addressed the specific question whether expert testimony explaining the modus operandi of drug dealers should be admissible in the prosecution of drug-distribution offenses. The general rule in the federal courts favors admissibility of such evidence. “Federal courts often permit experts to testify on narcotics operations because jurors are commonly unfamiliar with the methods by which drug dealers attempt to conceal their activities.” United States v. Dunn, 846 F.2d 761, 763 (D.C.Cir.1988); see, e.g., United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 628-29 (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795,
holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible holding admissible expert testimony that identified seller runner and holder in hypothetical drug transaction that replicated governments trial proof holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding that vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical can constitute substantial evidence of residual functional capacity holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case