|
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
Approved 10/17/88
MANUFACTURING OF A CONTROLLED
DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE
(2C:35‑5)
Count
of the indictment charges the defendant as
follows:
(Read Indictment)
The pertinent part of the
statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑5) on which this indictment is based
reads as follows:
Except as authorized by [statute], it
shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or purposely ... to
manufacture ... a controlled dangerous substance [or controlled
substance analog].
The various kinds of
substances are defined in another part of our statute. (Insert
appropriate CDS, e.g., heroin, cocaine, etc.) is a dangerous
substance prohibited by the statute. (The defendant does not claim
legal authorization, so the exceptions in the statute are not
applicable in this case).
The statute, read
together with the indictment, identifies the elements which the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt of the
defendant on this (count of the) indictment. They are as follows:
1. S
in evidence is (insert appropriate CDS or controlled substance
analog).
2.
That the defendant manufactured S on the date
alleged in the indictment.
3.
That the defendant acted knowingly or purposefully in manufacturing
S__________.
[when it is alleged that a controlled
substance analog has been manufactured the following definition of
controlled substance analog should be charged]:
(In regard to the first
element, a "controlled substance analog" is a substance which (1)
has a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a
controlled dangerous substance and (2) was specifically designed to
produce an effect substantially similar to that of a controlled
substance.
In this case the indictment alleges that the defendant manufactured
which is an analog of the controlled dangerous
substance . Thus, to establish this element the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that has
a substantially similar chemical structure to the controlled
dangerous substance and that was specifically
designed to produce an effect substantially similar to the
controlled dangerous substance .)
In regard to the second
element, to "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 or natural origin, or
independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of
extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or
repackaging of the substance or labeling or re‑labeling of its
contained, except that this term does not include the preparation of
compounding of a controlled dangerous substance (or controlled
substance) analog by an individual for (his/her) own use or the
preparation, compounding, packaging, or labeling of a controlled
dangerous substance: (1) by a practitioner as an incident to
(his/her) administering or dispensing of a controlled dangerous
substance or controlled substance analog in the course of (his/her)
professional practice, or (2) by a practitioner (or under (his/her)
supervision) for the purpose of, or as an incident to, research,
teaching or chemical analysis and not for sale.
In this regard the term
"practitioner" means a physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific
investigator, laboratory, pharmacy, hospital or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a
controlled dangerous substance (or controlled substance analog) in
the course of professional practice or research in this State.
In regard to the third
element, the State must prove, as I have stated, that the defendant
acted knowingly or purposefully in manufacturing S
.
A person acts knowingly
with respect to the nature of (his/ her) conduct or the attendant
circumstances if (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of that
nature, or that such circumstances exist, or (he/she) is aware of a
high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with
respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if (he/she) is aware that
it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a
result. "Knowing," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have the
same meaning.
A person acts purposely
with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or a result thereof
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 (he/she) is aware of the
existence of such circumstances or (he/she) believes or hopes that
they exist. "With purpose," "designed," "with design" or equivalent
terms have the same meaning.
Remember that when we
speak of knowingly and purposely were speaking of conditions of the
mind that cannot be seen. It is not necessary for the State to
prove the existence of such mental states by direct evidence such as
a statement by the defendant that (he/she) had particular knowledge
or a particular purpose. Knowledge and purpose as separate
propositions of proof do not commonly exist. They must ordinarily
be discovered as other mental states are from circumstantial
evidence; that is, by reference to the defendant's conduct, words or
acts and all the surrounding circumstances.
To reiterate, the three
elements of this offense are that:
1. S in evidence is
(insert appropriate CDS) (or a controlled substance analog).
2.
That the defendant manufactured S on the date
alleged in the indictment.
3.
That the defendant acted knowingly or purposefully in manufacturing
S .
If you find that the
State has proven all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then
you must return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if you find
that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must return a verdict of not guilty.
N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑5
grades this offense for sentencing purposes by the type,
quantity and purity of the CDS involved. In certain cases,
the defendant is guilty of an offense regardless of the
quantity and purity of the CDS manufactured. This charge is
sufficient for such cases. However, in cases in which the
quantity and/or purity of the CDS is an element of the
offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑5c requires that this element
be determined by the jury. In such a case, this charge
would have to be supplemented to add this element. Please
see the supplementary model charge concerning this.
To be charged when the
indictment alleges manufacture of a controlled substance
analog.
|
 |
