Counterfeiting in NJ

2C:21-6. Credit cards

a. Definitions. As used in this section:

(1) Cardholder means the person or organization named on the face of a credit card to whom or for whose benefit the credit card is issued by an issuer.

(2) Credit card means any tangible or intangible instrument or device issued with or without fee by an issuer that can be used, alone or in connection with another means of account access, in obtaining money, goods, services or anything else of value on credit, including credit cards, credit plates, account numbers, or any other means of account access.

(3) Expired credit card means a credit card which is no longer valid because the term shown either on it or on documentation provided to the cardholder by the issuer has elapsed.

(4) Issuer means the business organization or financial institution which issues a credit card or its duly authorized agent.

(5) Receives or receiving means acquiring possession or control or accepting a credit card as security for a loan.

(6) Revoked credit card means a credit card which is no longer valid because permission to use it has been suspended or terminated by the issuer.

b. False statements made in procuring issuance of credit card. A person who makes or causes to be made, either directly or indirectly, any false statement in writing, knowing it to be false and with intent that it be relied on, respecting his identity or that of any other person, firm or corporation, or his financial condition or that of any other person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of procuring the issuance of a credit card is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

c. Credit card theft.

(1) A person who takes or obtains a credit card from the person, possession, custody or control of another without the cardholders consent or who, with knowledge that it has been so taken, receives the credit card with intent to use it or to sell it, or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. Taking a credit card without consent includes obtaining it by any conduct defined and prescribed in Chapter 20 of this title, Theft and Related Offenses.

A person who has in his possession or under his control (a) credit cards issued in the names of two or more other persons or, (b) two or more stolen credit cards is presumed to have violated this paragraph.

(2) A person who receives a credit card that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the identity or address of the cardholder, and who retains possession with intent to use it or to sell it or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

(3) A person other than the issuer who sells a credit card or a person who buys a credit card from a person other than the issuer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

(4) A person who, with intent to defraud the issuer, a person or organization providing money, goods, services or anything else of value, or any other person, obtains control over a credit card as security for debt is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

(5) A person who, with intent to defraud a purported issuer, a person or organization providing money, goods, services or anything else of value, or any other person, falsely makes or falsely embosses a purported credit card or utters such a credit card is guilty of a third degree offense. A person other than the purported issuer who possesses two or more credit cards which are falsely made or falsely embossed is presumed to have violated this paragraph. A person falsely makes a credit card when he makes or draws, in whole or in part, a device or instrument which purports to be the credit card of a named issuer but which is not such a credit card because the issuer did not authorize the making or drawing, or alters a credit card which was validly issued. A person falsely embosses a credit card when, without the authorization of the named issuer, he completes a credit card by adding any of the matter, other than the signature of the cardholder, which an issuer requires to appear on the credit card before it can be used by a cardholder.

(6) A person other than the cardholder or a person authorized by him who, with intent to defraud the issuer, or a person or organization providing money, goods, services or anything else of value, or any other person, signs a credit card, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. A person who possesses two or more credit cards which are so signed is presumed to have violated this paragraph.

d. Intent of cardholder to defraud; penalties; knowledge of revocation. A person, who, with intent to defraud the issuer, a person or organization providing money, goods, services or anything else of value, or any other person, (1) uses for the purpose of obtaining money, goods, services or anything else of value a credit card obtained or retained in violation of subsection c. of this section or a credit card which he knows is forged, expired or revoked, or (2) obtains money, goods, services or anything else of value by representing without the consent of the cardholder that he is the holder of a specified card or by representing that he is the holder of a card and such card has not in fact been issued, is guilty of a crime of the third degree. Knowledge of revocation shall be presumed to have been received by a cardholder four days after it has been mailed to him at the address set forth on the credit card or at his last known address by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and, if the address is more than 500 miles from the place of mailing, by air mail. If the address is located outside the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone and Canada, notice shall be presumed to have been received 10 days after mailing by registered or certified mail.

e. Intent to defraud by person authorized to furnish money, goods, or services; penalties.

(1) A person who is authorized by an issuer to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by the cardholder, or any agent or employees of such person, who, with intent to defraud the issuer or the cardholder, furnishes money, goods, services or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card obtained or retained in violation of subsection c. of this section or a credit card which he knows is forged, expired or revoked violates this paragraph and is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

(2) A person who is authorized by an issuer to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of value upon presentation of a credit card by the cardholder, fails to furnish money, goods, services or anything else of value which he represents in writing to the issuer that he has furnished is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

f. Incomplete credit cards; intent to complete without consent. A person other than the cardholder possessing two or more incomplete credit cards, with intent to complete them without the consent of the issuer or a person possessing, with knowledge of its character, machinery, plates or any other contrivance designed to reproduce instruments purporting to be the credit cards of an issuer who has not consented to the preparation of such credit cards, is guilty of a crime of the third degree. A credit card is incomplete if part of the matter other than the signature of the cardholder, which an issuer requires to appear on the credit card, before it can be used by a cardholder, has not yet been stamped, embossed, imprinted or written on it.

g. Receiving anything of value knowing or believing that it was obtained in violation of subsection d. of N.J.S.2C:21-6. A person who receives money, goods, services or anything else of value obtained in violation of subsection d. of this section, knowing or believing that it was so obtained is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. A person who obtains, at a discount price a ticket issued by an airline, railroad, steamship or other transportation company which was acquired in violation of subsection d. of this section without reasonable inquiry to ascertain that the person from whom it was obtained had a legal right to possess it shall be presumed to know that such ticket was acquired under circumstances constituting a violation of subsection d. of this section.

h. Fraudulent use of credit cards.

A person who knowingly uses any counterfeit, fictitious, altered, forged, lost, stolen or fraudulently obtained credit card to obtain money, goods or services, or anything else of value; or who, with unlawful or fraudulent intent, furnishes, acquires, or uses any actual or fictitious credit card, whether alone or together with names of credit cardholders, or other information pertaining to a credit card account in any form, is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

2C:21-32 Short title; definitions relative to counterfeit marks; offenses.

1. a. This act shall be known and may be cited as the New Jersey Trademark Counterfeiting Act.

b.As used in this act:

(1)Counterfeit mark means a spurious mark that is identical with or substantially indistinguishable from a genuine mark that is registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office or registered in the New Jersey Secretary of States office or a spurious mark that is identical with or substantially indistinguishable from the words, names, symbols, emblems, signs, insignias or any combination thereof, of the United States Olympic Committee or the International Olympic Committee; and that is used or is intended to be used on, or in conjunction with, goods or services for which the genuine mark is registered and in use.

(2)Retail value means the counterfeiters regular selling price for the item or service bearing or identified by the counterfeit mark. In the case of items bearing a counterfeit mark which are components of a finished product, the retail value shall be the counterfeiters regular selling price of the finished product on or in which the component would be utilized.

c.A person commits the offense of counterfeiting who, with the intent to deceive or defraud some other person, knowingly manufactures, uses, displays, advertises, distributes, offers for sale, sells, or possesses with intent to sell or distribute within, or in conjunction with commercial activities within New Jersey, any item, or services, bearing, or identified by, a counterfeit mark.

A person who has in his possession or under his control more than 25 items bearing a counterfeit mark shall be presumed to have violated this section.

d. (1) An offense set forth in this act shall be punishable as a crime of the fourth degree if:

the offense involves fewer than 100 items bearing a counterfeit mark;

the offense involves a total retail value of less than $1,000.00 for all items bearing, or services identified by, a counterfeit mark; or

the offense involves a first conviction under this act.

(2)An offense set forth in this act shall be punishable as a crime of the third degree if:

the offense involves 100 or more but fewer than 1,000 items bearing a counterfeit mark;

the offense involves a total retail value of $1,000.00 or more but less than $15,000.00 of all items bearing, or services identified by, a counterfeit mark; or

the offense involves a second conviction under this act.

(3)An offense set forth in this act shall be punishable as a crime of the second degree if:

the offense involves 1,000 or more items bearing a counterfeit mark;

the offense involves a total retail value of $15,000.00 or more of all items bearing, or services identified by a counterfeit mark; or

the offense involves a third or subsequent conviction under this act.

In addition, any person convicted under this act, notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3, shall be fined by the court an amount up to threefold the retail value of the items or services involved, providing that the fine imposed shall not exceed the following amounts: for a crime of the fourth degree, $100,000.00; for a crime of the third degree, $250,000.00; and for a crime of the second degree, $500,000.00.

e.All items bearing a counterfeit mark, and all personal property, including but not limited to, any items, objects, tools, machines, equipment, instrumentalities or vehicles of any kind, employed or used in connection with a violation of this act, shall be subject to forfeiture in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 64 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes.

f.For purposes of this act:

(1)the quantity or retail value of items or services shall include the aggregate quantity or retail value of all items bearing, or services identified by, every counterfeit mark the defendant manufactures, uses, displays, advertises, distributes, offers for sale, sells or possesses;

(2)any State or federal certificate of registration of any intellectual property shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

g.Conviction for an offense under this act does not preclude the defendants liability for the civil remedy available pursuant to section 2 of P.L. 1987, c.454 (C.56:3-13.16).

2C:64-1 Property subject to forfeiture.

2C:64-1. Property Subject to Forfeiture.

a.Any interest in the following shall be subject to forfeiture and no property right shall exist in them:

(1)Controlled dangerous substances, firearms which are unlawfully possessed, carried, acquired or used, illegally possessed gambling devices, untaxed cigarettes, untaxed special fuel, unlawful sound recordings and audiovisual works and items bearing a counterfeit mark. These shall be designated prima facie contraband.

(2)All property which has been, or is intended to be, utilized in furtherance of an unlawful activity, including, but not limited to, conveyances intended to facilitate the perpetration of illegal acts, or buildings or premises maintained for the purpose of committing offenses against the State.

(3)Property which has become or is intended to become an integral part of illegal activity, including, but not limited to, money which is earmarked for use as financing for an illegal gambling enterprise.

(4)Proceeds of illegal activities, including, but not limited to, property or money obtained as a result of the sale of prima facie contraband as defined by subsection a. (1), proceeds of illegal gambling, prostitution, bribery and extortion.

b.Any article subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by the State or any law enforcement officer as evidence pending a criminal prosecution pursuant to section 2C:64-4 or, when no criminal proceeding is instituted, upon process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction over the property, except that seizure without such process may be made when not inconsistent with the Constitution of this State or the United States, and when

(1)The article is prima facie contraband; or

(2)The property subject to seizure poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare.

c.For the purposes of this section:

Items bearing a counterfeit mark means items bearing a counterfeit mark as defined in N.J.S.2C:21-32.

Unlawful sound recordings and audiovisual works means sound recordings and audiovisual works as those terms are defined in N.J.S.2C:21-21 which were produced in violation of N.J.S.2C:21-21.

Untaxed special fuel means diesel fuel, No. 2 fuel oil and kerosene on which the motor fuel tax imposed pursuant to R.S.54:39-1 et seq. is not paid that is delivered, possessed, sold or transferred in this State in a manner not authorized pursuant to R.S.54:39-1 et seq. or P.L. 1938, c.163 (C.56:6-1 et seq.).

http://www.njlaws.com/Counterfeiting.html?id=2586&a=

CORRUPTING OR INFLUENCING JURY 2C:29-8)[1] model jury charge in NJ

CORRUPTING OR INFLUENCING A JURY

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-8)[1]model jury charge

The defendant is charged with the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury. The indictment reads in pertinent part as follows:

(Read indictment)

This indictment is based on a statute which provides:

Any person who, directly or indirectly, corrupts, influences or attempts to corrupt or influence a jury or juror to be more favorable to the one side than to the other by promises, persuasions, entreaties, threats, letters, money, entertainment or other sinister means; or any person who employs any unfair or fraudulent practice, art or contrivance to obtain a verdict, or attempts to instruct a jury or juror beforehand at any place or time, or in any manner or way, except in open court at the trial of the cause, by the strength of the evidence, the arguments of the parties or their counsel, or the opinion or charge of the court is guilty of a crime.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(Charge as Appropriate)

(1a)that the defendant, directly or indirectly, corrupted, [or] influenced [or attempted to corrupt or influence] a jury or juror to be more favorable to one side than to the other by promises, persuasions, entreaties, threats, letters, money, entertainment or other sinister means;

(and/or)

(1b)that defendant employed any unfair or fraudulent practice, art or contrivance to obtain a verdict, [or attempted to instruct a jury or juror beforehand] at any place or time, or in any manner or way, except in open court during the course of the trial, by the strength of the evidence, the arguments of the parties or their counsel or the opinion or charge of the court; and

(Charge as Appropriate)

(2a)that defendant acted knowingly.

(and/or)

(2b)that defendant attempted to corrupt or influence the jury.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant, directly or indirectly, corrupted, [or] influenced [or attempted to corrupt or influence] a jury or juror to be more favorable to one side than to the other by either promises, persuasions, entreaties, threats, letters, money, entertainment or other sinister means;

(and/or)

That defendant employed any unfair or fraudulent practice, art or contrivance to obtain a verdict, [or attempted to instruct a jury or juror beforehand] at any place or time, or in any manner or way, except in open court during the course of the trial, by the strength of the evidence, the arguments of the parties or their counsel or the opinion or charge of the court.

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted knowingly.

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.

Knowledge is a condition of the mind.It cannot be seen.It can only be determined by inferences from defendants conduct, words or acts.A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she did a particular thing.It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.

(and/or)

ALTERNATIVE I

[To be used when defendant is charged with Attempt]

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant attempted to corrupt or influence a jury.

ALTERNATIVE II
[If the facts raise the question whether the crime was completed, the jury should be instructed to turn to a consideration of whether an attempt to commit the crime has been established.[2]]

The indictment charges that the defendant committed the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury.If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury was committed, then you should consider whether an attempt to commit the crime has been established.

[If knowing or lesser culpability would have sufficed for the completed crime, add the following]

Before I explain the definition of an attempt, let me explain an important difference between an attempt and the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury.Although it is possible to commit the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury with [knowledge], to be guilty of an attempt the defendant must act with purpose.In other words, the defendant must have the purpose to commit the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury, in order to be guilty of attempting it.[3]

[MAIN CHARGE]

The law provides that a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person:[4]

[Select the appropriate section]

[(1) Attempt - Impossibility]

Purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;

[or]

[(2) Attempt - When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]

Does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing [result] without further conduct on his/her part.

[or]

[(3) Attempt-Substantial Step]

Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his/her commission of the crime.

Thus, in order to find the defendant guilty of a criminal attempt, the State must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

[Select the appropriate Section]

[(1) Attempt - Impossibility]

The first element is that the defendant acted purposely.A defendant acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof 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 he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.

The second element is that the defendant engaged in conduct which would constitute the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury had the facts been as a reasonable person would have believed them to be.

[Here define the crime allegedly attempted if it has not been defined already, or refer jurors to the definition previously charged]

If the accused purposely engaged in conduct that would constitute the crime ofcorrupting or influencing a jury had the facts been as a reasonable person would have believed them to be, you should consider that conduct as evidence of guilt of attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury.It does not matter that the defendant failed to accomplish his/her intended result because the facts were not as a reasonable person would have believed them to be; it is no defense that the defendant could not succeed in reaching his/her intended result because of circumstances unknown to him/her .However, there cannot be an attempt to commit a crime unless the attempt, if completed, would have constituted the crime.[5]

[or]

[(2) When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]

First, that the defendant had the purpose to cause [here state the result that is an element of the alleged attempted crime].A defendant acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof 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 he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.

The second element is that the defendant did or omitted to do anything to cause [state the result which is an element] without further conduct or action on his/her part.Where the accused has done all that he/she ) believes necessary to cause [state the result which is an element], you should consider that as evidence of guilt of an attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury.

[or]

[(3) Substantial Step]

First, that the defendant had the purpose to committing the crime of corrupting or influencing a jury.A defendant acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof 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 he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.

The second element is that the defendant purposely did or omitted to do anything, which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission that is a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his/her commission of the crime.However, the step taken must strongly show the defendants criminal purpose.That is, the step taken must be substantial and not just a very remote preparatory act, and must show that the accused has a firmness of criminal purpose.

[Charge in Every Case Except One Involving the Renunciation Defense]

If you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of an attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury.However, if you find that the State failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of an attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury.

[Charge Where Appropriate]

RENUNCIATION OF CRIMINAL PURPOSE

[To be used when the defendants conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under Section 2 or 3 above]

As part of the defendants denial of guilt, the defendant raised the defense of renunciation of criminal purpose.

The accused must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he/she abandoned his/her effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances that show a complete and voluntary decision to renounce his/her criminal purpose.The abandonment of the criminal effort must begin with the defendant and not be forced upon him/her by some outside event, such as police intervention.[6]Renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if the reason for it is that it seems more likely that defendant will be detected or caught, or the objective seems more difficult than it did at the beginning of the course of conduct.Renunciation is not complete if the defendant only decides to postpone the criminal conduct to a better time or to focus on another but similar objective or victim.If mere abandonment of the criminal effort is not enough to prevent the offense, then the defendant must have taken further and affirmative steps that actually prevented the commission of the offense.[7]

As I stated, the defendant must prove renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence.I previously explained that the State has the burden of proving every element of the crime(s) charged beyond a reasonable doubt.The burden of proving renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence is a lesser burden.It simply means that the defendant has the burden of establishing that the evidence supporting renunciation is more likely true than not.Another way to describe it is the greater weight of the believable evidence in the case.It does not necessarily mean the evidence of the greater number of witnesses, but rather, the evidence that carries the greater convincing power in your minds.I remind you, however, that the burden of proving every element of the attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury as I have previously defined it is always on the State and never on the defendant.

If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of an attempt to commit corrupting or influencing a jury.Also, if you find the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she renounced his/her criminal purpose, then you must find the defendant not guilty.However, if you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has failed to establish renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempting to corrupt or influence a jury.

(Charge in All Cases)

If you find that the State has not proven any of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.

If you find that the State has proven all of the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.

(Charge as Appropriate)

If you have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of corrupting or influencing a jury, or of attempting to corrupt or influence a jury, then you must go on with your deliberations and determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant employed force or the threat of force in the course of committing the crime.

Use of force or threat of force means to employ or threaten to employ the exercise of strength or power against another. That force need not entail pain or bodily harm and need not leave any mark.[8]

If you find that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the additional element that the defendant used or threatened the use of force, then you must find the defendant guilty only of corrupting or influencing a jury [or attempting to corrupt or influence a jury].

If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the additional element that the defendant used or threatened the use of force, then you must go on with your deliberations and determine whether the defendant employed force or the threat of force in connection with an official proceeding involving any of the following crimes:

(Choose Appropriate)

(1)Murder (2C:11-3);

(2)Aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter (2C:11-4);

(3)Vehicular homicide (2C:11-5);

(4)Aggravated assault (subsection b. of 2C:12-1);

(5)Disarming a law enforcement officer (subsection b. of 2C:12-11);

(6)Kidnapping (2C:13-1);

(7)Aggravated sexual assault (subsection a. of 2C:14-2);

(8)Sexual assault (subsection b. and paragraph 1 of subsection c. of 2C:14-2);

(9)Robbery (2C:15-1);

(10)Carjacking (section 1 of 2C:15-2);

(11)Aggravated arson (paragraph 1 of subsection a. of 2C:17-1);

(12)Burglary (2C:18-2);

(13)Extortion (subsection a. of 2C:20-5);

(14)Booby traps in manufacturing or distribution facilities (subsection b. of 2C:35-4.1);

(15)Strict liability for drug induced deaths (2C:35-9);

(16)Terrorism (section 2 of 2C:38-2);

(17)Producing or possessing chemical weapons, biological agents or nuclear or radiological devices (section 3 of 2C:38-3); and

(18)First degree racketeering (2C:41-2).

The term official proceeding includes any type of proceeding where the taking of testimony under oath is authorized.[9]

If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants use or threat to use force occurred in connection with an official proceeding involving one of the previously enumerated crimes, then you must find defendant guilty only of corrupting or influencing a jury by the use or threatened use of force.

On the other hand, if you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or threatened to use force in connection with an official proceeding involving one of the previously enumerated crimes, then you must find the defendant guilty of this charge.[10]


[1]N.J.S.A.2C:29-8 was amended byL.2009,c. 169, 1, to upgrade the offense in subsection (a) to a first-degree crime.The amendment was made effective January 9, 2010.

[2]N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8d(2).

[3]State v. Rhett, 127N.J.3, 6-7 (1992);State v. Robinson, 136N.J.476, 485-86 (1994).

[4]Because all attempts must be purposeful,State v. Rhett, 136N.J.476;State v. Robinson, 127N.J.3, and because other portions of the statute include the requirement of purpose, the language inN.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, shouldnotbe charged.

[5]Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary, pp.114-115, quoting fromState v. Moretti, 52N.J.182, 186-90 (1968).N.J.S.A.2C:5-1a(1) rejects outright the defense of impossibility.

[6]Code Commentary at 124.

[7]Id. at 125.

[8]State v. Brannon, 178N.J.500, 504 and 510 (2004).

[9]SeeN.J.S.A. 2C:27-1d.

[10]In sum, there are seven possible verdicts for the jurys consideration: (1) not guilty; (2) guilty of third-degree corrupting or influencing a jury; (3) guilty of attempted third-degree corrupting or influencing a jury; (4) guilty of second-degree corrupting or influencing a jury while employing the use or threat to use force; (5) guilty of attempted second-degree corrupting or influencing a jury while employing the use or threat to use force; (6) guilty of first-degree corrupting or influencing a jury while employing the use or threat to use force in connection with an official proceeding involving any of the enumerated crimes; and (7) guilty of attempted first-degree corrupting or influencing a jury while employing the use or threat to use force in connection with an official proceeding involving any of the enumerated crimes.

http://www.njlaws.com/corrupting.html?id=5508&a=

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerks Samantha Morgan-Rickett, Christian Pluchino, Sage Geyer, Camille Golowski, Emily Rathburn, and Kevin Grenger

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerks Samantha Morgan-Ricketts, Christian Pluchino, Sage Geyer, Camille Golowski, Emily Rathburn, and Kevin Grenger

Winter law clerk Kevin Grenger- James Madison University

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Kevin Grenger- James Madison University

winter law clerk Sage Geyer- Amherst College

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Sage Geyer- Amherst College

Winter law clerk Emily Rathburn- Rutgers University Graduate School

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Emily Rathburn- Rutgers University Graduate School

Winter law clerk Samantha Morgan-Ricketts- Monroe College

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Samantha Morgan-Ricketts- Monroe College

Winter law clerk Christian Pluchino- University of Virginia

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Christian Pluchino- University of Virginia

Winter law clerk Camille Golowski- Johns Hopkins University

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Camille Golowski- Johns Hopkins University

Winter Law Clerks 2020

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Camille Golowski- Johns Hopkins University

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Christian Pluchino- University of Virginia

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Samantha Morgan-Ricketts- Monroe College

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Emily Rathburn- Rutgers University Graduate School

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Sage Geyer- Amherst College

 Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerk Kevin Grenger- James Madison University

Kenneth Vercammen with winter law clerks Samantha Morgan-Rickett, Christian Pluchino, Sage Geyer, Camille Golowski, Emily Rathburn, and Kevin Grenger