New Jersey Drug Charges
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE
CONTROLLED DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES NEAR OR ON SCHOOL
PROPERTY USED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7)
The defendant is charged with possessing with intent to
distribute a controlled dangerous substance near or on school
property, used for school purposes. The statute upon which this
charge is based reads, in its pertinent part, as follows:
Any person who violates [another section of
our law] by possessing with intent to distribute a controlled
dangerous substance [or controlled substance analog] while on any
school property used for school purposes which is owned by any
elementary or secondary school or school board, or within 1,000 feet
of any school property or school bus, or while on any school bus, is
guilty of a crime. . .
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this
charge, the State must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant knowingly or purposely possessed with intent to
distribute a controlled dangerous substance (or controlled substance
analog). As I have previously instructed you, the elements of
possession with intent to distribute are:
1. S_______ in evidence is (insert appropriate
CDS or CDS analog.)
2. The defendant possessed or had under
(his/her) control S_______.
3. The defendant had the intent
to distribute S_______ when (he/she) possessed it or
had it under (his/her) control.
4. That the defendant acted knowingly or
purposely in doing so.
In
addition to proving the possession with intent to distribute, the
State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this act
occurred:
(CHARGE APPROPRIATE TERM)
on (or within 1,000 feet of) any school property
OR
on (or within 1,000 feet of) a school bus.
The term school property means any property which is used for school
purposes and is owned by or leased to an elementary school,
secondary school or school board.
The 1,000 feet zone extends from the outermost boundary of the
school property and not from the school building itself. It does
not matter whether the school is public, private or parochial. It
is also no defense to this charge that no juveniles were present on
the school property at the time of the offense, or that the school
was not in session.
The possibility that defendant may have been unaware
that the prohibited conduct took place on or within 1,000 feet of
school property is not a defense to this crime
and shall not be considered by you in your deliberations. I further
charge you that whether the defendant intended to make the
distribution within 1,000 feet of the school is irrelevant.
(CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE)
[It is an affirmative defense that the crime took place
entirely within a private residence. This defense does not apply if
any person 17 years or younger was present anywhere in the residence
at any time during the commission of the offense or if the offense
was committed for profit. This defense must be proven by the
defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, if you
find that it is more likely than not that:
1. The offense
took place totally within a private residence; and
2. no person
17 years of age or younger was present anywhere in the residence at
any time during the commission of the offense; and
3. the offense
was not committed for profit, then you must find the defendant not
guilty.
This defense applies only to this charge and shall not
affect your verdict concerning any other count of the indictment.]
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 one
of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must return a
verdict of not guilty.
Where there is a question whether the property
was used for school purposes charge the following:
"In
addition to determining whether property is school property,
you must determine the purpose for which it is used. You
must decide whether the property is regularly, consistently,
and actually used for school purposes, and whether the
property's appearance would give an objectively reasonable
person reason to know that it was used regularly,
consistently, and actually for school purposes." State
v. Ivory, 124 N.J. 582, 587, 592 (1991).
The statute eliminates this defense only in
cases involving school property and does not eliminate such
a defense in cases in which the prohibited conduct occurred
on or within 1,000 feet of a school bus.
|
