|
WHAT WERE YOU
CHARGED WITH?
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
Home
NJ Criminal Law:
Criminal Charge
Resource Ctr.
NJ Appellate Opinions
Criminal Law Articles
NJ Criminal Law Blog
Criminal Lawyer
Bio
FREE Consultation
15% discount to new web
clients using this form
Contact Info/Office
Directions
HARK & HARK
New Jersey Criminal Lawyer
1101 Marlton Pike West
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
(866) 427-5529
Practicing in all NJ Counties
|
New Jersey Drug Charges
Revised 2/26/96
LEADER OF DRUG TRAFFICKING NETWORK
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑3)
The indictment charges defendant with the crime of being a leader of
a drug trafficking network. That section of our statutes provides
in pertinent part that
A person is a leader of a narcotics trafficking network if he/she
conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or
manager, to engage for profit in a scheme or course of conduct to
unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, bring into, or
transport in this State methamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide,
phencyclidine, or any controlled dangerous substance classified in
Schedule I or II or any controlled substance analog
thereof.
In order to convict defendant of the charge, the State
must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That defendant conspired with two or more
persons.
(2) That the conspiracy included a scheme or
course of conduct to unlawfully (manufacture, distribute, dispense,
bring into, or transport) in this State (name controlled dangerous
substance of analog allegedly involved).
(3) That defendant was an organizer, supervisor,
financier or manager in such a conspiracy.
(4) That defendant
occupied a high level position in the conspiracy.
(5) That defendant engaged in the conspiracy for
profit.
If you find that the State has proven these elements
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of
being a leader of a drug trafficking network. If you find that the
State has failed to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you must find the defendant not guilty of being a leader of a
drug trafficking network.
The first element which the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant conspired with two or more
persons. [Read model charge on conspiracy; if conspiracy already
charged, remind jurors of that definition].
The second element which the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the conspiracy included a scheme or course
of conduct to unlawfully (manufacture, distribute, dispense, bring
into or transport)
controlled dangerous substances or an analog. Manufacture means the
production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion or
processing of a controlled dangerous substance or controlled
substance analog, either directly or by extraction from substances
of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis,
and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or
labeling or relabeling of its container. . .
Distribute means to deliver, i.e., the transfer from one
person to another of controlled dangerous substance or a controlled
substance analog. The transfer can be actual, constructive or
attempted. Dispensing means to deliver a controlled dangerous
substance or controlled substance analog to an ultimate user or
research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a
practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging,
labeling or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that
delivery. Transport means to carry from one place to another. [IF
APPLICABLE, CHARGE THE FOLLOWING]. It is not a defense to this
charge that the controlled dangerous substance or analog was brought
into this State solely for ultimate distribution or dispensing in
another location.
The third element which the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant acted as an organizer,
supervisor, financier or manager within the conspiracy.
An organizer is a person who arranges, devises, or plans a drug
trafficking conspiracy. A supervisor is one who oversees the
operation of a drug trafficking conspiracy. A financier is one who
is responsible for providing the funds or resources necessary to
operate a drug trafficking conspiracy. A manager is one who directs
the operations of a drug trafficking conspiracy. Defendant, however,
does not have to be the only or even the primary organizer,
supervisor, financier or manager.
The fourth element which the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant held a high-level position in the
drug trafficking conspiracy. In other words, the State must prove
that defendant occupied a position of superior authority or control
over other persons in a scheme or organization of drug distribution
(or manufacture, dispensing or transportation) and that in that
position the defendant exercised supervisory power or control over
others engaged in the drug trafficking conspiracy.
The final element which the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant engaged in the conspiracy for
profit. However, the State need not prove that any intended profit
was actually realized. You may infer that a particular scheme or
course of conduct was undertaken for profit from all the surrounding
circumstances, among them the number of persons involved in the
scheme, the defendant’s net worth and his expenditures in relation
to his legitimate source(s) of income,the amount or purity of the
controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog or the
amount of cash or currency involved. [IF APPLICABLE, CHARGE THE
FOLLOWING]. It is not a defense to this charge that the profit,
if any, involved in this scheme was intended to be made in another
location.
If the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt any of the elements of this offense, then you must find the
defendant not guilty. If the State has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt each element of this offense, then you must find the defendant
guilty.
Pick the appropriate controlled dangerous substance or
analog alleged in the indictment.
State v. Afanador, 134 N.J. 162 (1993).
Choose the appropriate allegation.
Read statutory exception to definition (N.J.S.A.
2C:35-2) if applicable.
In State v. Afanador, 134 N.J. 162, 171
(1993), the Supreme Court indicated that the trial court was
under no obligation to define these terms. However, in
State v. Alexander, 136 N.J. 563, 574-75 (1994),
the Court decided that these terms should be more fully
explained to the jury.
|
 |
