|
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 10/23/00
LEADER OF NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING
NETWORK
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑3)
[For crimes committed after January
12, 1998]
Count of
the indictment charges defendant with the crime of being a leader of
a narcotics 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 two or more other
persons in a scheme or course of conduct to unlawfully manufacture,
distribute, dispense, bring into, or transport in this State
methamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, phencyclidine, gamma
hydroxybutyrate,
flunitrazepam
or any controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I or II
or any drug or substance which, when ingested, is metabolized or
otherwise becomes a controlled dangerous substance in the body,
or any controlled substance analog
thereof as a financier, or as an organizer, supervisor or manager of
at least one other person.
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 purpose of
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 or analog allegedly
involved), and
(3) That defendant
was a financier
OR
That
defendant was an organizer, supervisor or manager of at least one
other person and
(4) That defendant occupied a high level position in the
conspiracy.
The first element that
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
conspired with two or more persons. [Read model jury charge on
conspiracy; if conspiracy already charged, remind jurors of that
definition].
The second element that
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 controlled
substance analog was brought into this State solely for ultimate
distribution or dispensing in another location.
The third element that
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
acted as [CHOOSE APPLICABLE] a financier [OR] as an
organizer, supervisor or manager of at least one other person.
A financier is a person who, with the intent to derive a profit,
provides money or credit or other thing of value in order to
purchase a controlled dangerous substance or an immediate precursor,
or otherwise to finance the operations of a drug trafficking
network. The State need not prove that any intended profit was
actually realized. [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.
An organizer is a person who
purposely arranges, devises, or plans a drug trafficking conspiracy.
A supervisor is one who purposely oversees the operation of a drug
trafficking conspiracy. A manager is one who purposely directs the
operations of a drug trafficking conspiracy.
A person acts
purposely with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the
result of that conduct if it is (his/her) conscious object to engage
in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts
purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if the person is
aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes
that they exist. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design,” or
equivalent terms have the same meaning. Purposely is a state of mind
that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from
conduct, words or acts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the
State produce witnesses to testify that a defendant said that
(he/she) purposely did something. (His/Her) purpose may be gathered
from (his/her) acts and conduct, from all that (he/she) said and did
at the particular time and place, and from all the surrounding
circumstances reflected in the testimony [and evidence adduced at
trial].
The fourth element that
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.
Defendant, however, does not have
to be the only or even the primary financier, organizer, supervisor,
or manager, and it is no defense that defendant was subject to the
supervision or management of another, nor that another person or
persons were also leaders of the narcotics trafficking network.
If the State has proven
each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find
the defendant guilty. If the State has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any element of this offense, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
See definition of
controlled dangerous substance in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2
(effective August 19, 1999).
Pick the appropriate
controlled dangerous substance or analog alleged in the
indictment.
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, 574-575 (1994), the Court decided that these terms
should be more fully explained to the jury.
Query whether the
rationale of State v. Alexander, 136 N.J. 563
(1994), i.e., that the defendant occupies a
supervisory position, applies to financier.
|
 |
