LEADER OF ORGANIZED CRIME NJSA 2C52g LEADER OF ORGANIZED

leader of organized crime n.j.s.a. 2c:5-2g leader of organized crime ========================= (n.j.s.a. 2c:5-2g) count of t

LEADER OF ORGANIZED CRIME
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2g
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:
(1) That defendant purposely conspired with two or more persons1
(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 manager is one who purposely directs the operations of an organized
crime conspiracy.5
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.
1See 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.
3The crimes or conduct which are eligible for racketeering activity
are set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a(1) and (2).
4Financier was included in the statute as of June 18, 2002.
5Cf. State v. Afanador I, 134 N.J. 162, 171 (1993).
Page 3 of 3