In State v. Milton, 255 N.J. Super. 514, 605 A.2d 757 (App.Div.1992), the defendant was charged with drug offenses based on evidence obtained in a search of a house that he occupied with his parents and two brothers. The defense was that the drugs found in the search belonged to one of the defendant's brothers. The Court concluded that the reference during the State's case to a warrant to search the house was not objectionable. 255 N.J. Super. at 520, 605 A.2d 757. However, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction because the State also presented testimony concerning an unexecuted warrant to search his person. The Court concluded that this testimony was unnecessary to the presentation of the State's case and that it implied that the State had presented undisclosed evidence to the issuing judge that defendant was likely to be in possession of drugs: The defendant was unquestionably prejudiced by the mention of the existence of a warrant to search his person. The natural inference from the mention of the warrant itself, confirmed by the cautionary instruction of the trial judge, was that sufficient independent proof had been presented to a neutral judge to believe that defendant would be found in possession of drugs. Ibid.