LEADER OF ORGANIZED CRIME
(N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g)
Count of the indictment charges defendant with the
crime of being a leader of organized crime. [READ COUNT OF INDICTMENT]. That section of our statutes provides in
pertinent part that
A person is a leader of
organized crime if he purposely conspires with others as an organizer,
supervisor or manager or financier to commit a continuing series of crimes
which constitute a pattern of racketeering activity....
In
order to convict defendant of the charge, the State must prove each of the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2) That
the purpose of the conspiracy was to commit a continuing series of crimes which
constitute a pattern of racketeering activity and
(3) That within that conspiracy, defendant was
a
[CHOOSE
APPROPRIATE] financier, organizer, supervisor or manager.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant purposely 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
purpose of the conspiracy was to commit a continuing series of crimes, here
[state crimes alleged] which, if proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, constitute a
pattern of racketeering activity. A
pattern of racketeering requires the State to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt (1) that defendant engaged in at least two incidents of
racketeering conduct, one of which must have occurred after June 5, 1981, and
the last of which must have occurred within 10 years of a prior incident of
racketeering activity,[2] and (2) that the incidents of racketeering
activity embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or similar purposes,
results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise
interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents.
In this case, the State alleges that defendant conspired to commit the crimes of __________
[Charge elements of substantive crimes or, if already charged, remind
jurors of those definitions].[3] The State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that defendant
conspired to commit at least two of these crimes and that the crimes he/she conspired to commit are a continuing series of crimes that
constitute a pattern of racketeering.
You must unanimously agree about the crimes defendant conspired to commit.
The third element that the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt is that, within the conspiracy, defendant acted as [CHOOSE APPLICABLE] a financier,[4] organizer, supervisor or manager of at
least one other person.
A financier means a person who provides
money, credit or a thing of value with the purpose or knowledge that it will be
used to finance or support the operations of a conspiracy to commit a series of
crimes which constitute a pattern of racketeering activity, including but not
limited to the purchase of materials to be used in the commission of crimes,
buying or renting housing or vehicles, purchasing transportation for members of
the conspiracy or otherwise facilitating the commission of crimes which
constitute a pattern of racketeering activity.
An organizer is a person who purposely
arranges, devises, or plans an organized crime conspiracy.
A supervisor is one who purposely oversees
the operation of an organized crime 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.
[CHARGE WITH REGARD TO FINANCIER]
A person acts
knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware
that the conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or the
person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a
result of the conduct if he/she is aware
that it is practically certain that the conduct will cause a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent
terms have the same meaning.
Purposely [and knowingly] is [are] a
state[s] 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 [or knowingly] did something. His/Her purpose
[or knowledge] 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].
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 organized
crime conspiracy.
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.
[1] See
State v. Afanador I, 134 N.J. 162
(1993) (construing similar language in “drug kingpin” statute).
[2]
The statute excludes from the 10 year period any time the defendant spent in prison. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(d)(1).
If this is relevant in a case, the parties and trial court
should discuss a way to inform the jury of that fact without unduly prejudicing
the defendant.
[3] The
crimes or conduct which are eligible for racketeering activity are set forth in
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a(1)
and (2).
[4] Financier
was included in the statute as of June 18, 2002.
