LEADER OF DRUG TRAFFICKING NETWORK
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑3) model jury charge
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 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[1] 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]
(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)[3]
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. . .[4]
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.[5] 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/her expenditures in relation to his/her 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.
[5] 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.