(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.1(b))
The
defendant is charged with the crime of dealing in stolen property. The statute
on which this charge is based reads as follows:
A person is guilty of dealing in stolen property if he
traffics in, or initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages or
supervises trafficking in stolen property.
Under
our law, a person is guilty of dealing in stolen property although he/she did not steal the property himself/herself, when, with knowledge that the property has been stolen, he/she deals in stolen property with the
awareness or knowledge of what he/she is doing. The identity of the person
from whom he/she received the property is immaterial.
Merely dealing in property that has been stolen is not an offense. It becomes a
criminal act when one deals in stolen property knowing it has been stolen.
Thus,
the elements that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the
defendant of this charge are:
(1) That
the property was stolen.
(2) That the defendant trafficked in or
initiated, organized, planned, financed, directed, managed or supervised
trafficking in stolen property.
(3) That
in doing those acts the defendant acted knowingly.
(4) That
at the time he/she dealt in the property he/she knew it had been stolen.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
property was stolen.
Property
means anything of value.[1] Stolen
property means property that has been the subject of any unlawful taking.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant trafficked in or initiated, organized, planned, financed, directed,
managed or supervised trafficking in stolen property.
“Traffic”
means 1) To sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of
property to another person; or 2) To buy, receive, possess or obtain control of
or use property, with intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or
otherwise dispose of such property to another person.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted knowingly in trafficking in or initiating, organizing,
planning, financing, directing, managing or supervising trafficking in stolen
property.
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. You must realize that knowledge is a state of mind
which can be determined by drawing an inference from one’s conduct, words or
actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It, therefore, is not
necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she
knew the property was stolen. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her
conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and
place, and all the surrounding circumstances.
The
fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that at
the time the defendant dealt in the property he/she knew it had been stolen.
(Charge Whichever, if any, of the
Following are Applicable)[2]
(1) If
you find proof of the purchase or sale of property by the defendant at a price
substantially below its fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, you
may infer that the defendant knew that it had been stolen[3];
and/or
(2) If
you find proof of the purchase or sale of property by a dealer in that
property, out of the regular course of business, or without the usual indicia
of ownership other than mere possession, or the property or the job lot of
which it is a part was bought, received, possessed or controlled in broken
succession or title, so that it cannot be traced, by appropriate documents, in
unbroken succession to the manufacturer, in all cases where the regular course
of business reasonably indicates records of purchase, transfer or sale, unless
satisfactorily explained, you may infer that the person buying or selling the
property knew that it had been stolen.
“Dealer
in property” means a person who buys and sells property as a business.[4]
and/or
(3) If
you find proof that a person buying or selling property of the sort received,
obtained such property without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that
the person from whom he/she obtained it had a legal right to
possess or control it, you may infer that such person knew that it had been
stolen.
(Charge
When Any of (1), (2), or (3) Above is Charged)
You
are never required or compelled to draw any inference. It is your exclusive
province to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence
support any inferences and you are always free to accept or reject them if you
wish.
(NOTE: THE
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED
IF AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WILL BE CHARGED)
If
you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If on the other hand you find
that the State has failed to prove one or more of these elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
(Charge When Applicable)
The
defendant contends that he/she:
(1) Was unaware that the property or service
was that of another and/or
(2) Acted under an honest claim of right to
the property or service involved or that
he/she had a right to acquire or dispose of
it as he/she did.
The
defendant is not required to prove his/her contentions; rather the burden is on
the State to prove that the defendant was unaware that the property was that of
another and/or did not act under an honest claim of right to the property or
service involved or that he/she had a right to acquire or dispose of
it as he/she did.
If
you find that the State has proven each of the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt and has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was aware that the property was that of another (and) (that the
defendant did not act under an honest claim of right to the property or a
belief that he/she had the right to acquire or dispose
of it as he/she did), then you must find the
defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to
prove one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt or that the State
has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware that
the property was that of another (or that the defendant did not act under an
honest claim of right to the property or a belief that he/she had the right to acquire or dispose of it as he/she did), then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
(NOTE: DO NOT CHARGE THE FOLLOWING FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY
SUCH AS AN AUTOMOBILE OR FIREARM. SEE N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)(b) and (c)).
Since
the value of the property involved determines the degree or severity of the
crime, the State must also prove its value beyond a reasonable doubt. If you
find the defendant guilty, then you must indicate whether you find the value of
the property involved:
(1) exceeds $500;
(2) is
at least $200, but does not exceed $500; or
(3) is
less than $200.[5]
Value
is to be determined by the fair market value of the property at the time the
defendant is alleged to have trafficked in, or initiated, organized, planned,
financed, directed, managed, or supervised trafficking in stolen property. Fair
market value means the price that a buyer would be willing to pay and a seller
would be willing to accept if both parties were aware of all the relevant
surrounding circumstances and neither party were under any compulsion to buy or
sell.
[2] In the appropriate case, the jury may
be advised that knowledge that the property was stolen may be inferred from the
presence of the factors set forth in 2C:20-7.1e if there is a factual basis to
do so in the evidence, but it must be made clear that the inference is
permissive, not conclusive; that it must be considered along with all the other
evidence in the case; and that it in no way shifts the burden of proof from the
State to the defendant. See State v. Bott, 53 N.J. 391 (1969) and
State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360 (1969).
[3] The language “you may infer” has been
substituted for the statutory language of “gives rise to an inference” pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-13(e). See also State v. Bott, supra and State
v. DiRienzo, supra.
