LEADER OF NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING NETWORK
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35‑3)
[For crimes committed after January 12, 1998] model jury charge
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 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,[1] flunitrazepam[2] 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,[3] or any controlled substance analog[4] 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)[5] 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 . . .[6] 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.[7] 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.[8]
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.
[3] See definition of controlled
dangerous substance in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2 (effective August 19, 1999).
[7] 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.
[8] 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.