N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2d

Approved 3/22/21

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT RACKETEERING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d))

Under the ____________ count of the indictment the defendant(s) is (are) charged with

the crime of conspiracy to commit racketeering.

Count ____ of the indictment alleges that the defendant(s) conspired to commit a

violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2 [SELECT CHARGED SECTION A, B, OR C]

N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d) provides in pertinent part:

It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to [QUOTE CONDUCT CHARGED IN

THE INDICTMENT].

Conspiracy is defined under our statutes as:

(SELECT APPROPRIATE SECTION)

(1) Agreeing with such other person or persons that they or one

or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes

such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such

crime; or

(2) Agreeing to aid such other person or persons in the

planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or

solicitation to commit such crime; or

(3) Agreeing to conduct or to participate in the conduct of a

charged enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of

racketeering.

1

A conspiracy to commit the crime of racketeering is a crime in itself separate and distinct

from the crime of racketeering. In other words, a defendant may be found guilty of the crime of

conspiracy regardless of whether that defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime of

racketeering.

In ord er for you to find a defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy, the State must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements:

(1) That the defendant agreed with another person or persons that they

or one or more of them would engage in conduct which constitutes

a crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime;

1 State v. Cagno, 211 N.J. 488 (2014).

CONSPIRACY – RACKETEERING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d))

OR

That the defendant agreed to aid another person or persons in the

planning or commission of a crime or of an attempt or solicitation

to commit such crime.

OR

That the defendant agreed to participate in the conduct of a

charged enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering.

AND

(2) That the defendant’s purpose was to promote or facilitate the

commission of the crime of racketeering.

A person 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 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 nature of the purpose with which the de fendant acted is a question of fact for you the

jury to decide. Purpose is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be

determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to

produce a witness or witnes ses who could testify that the defendant stated, for example, that

he/she acted with a specific purpose. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose has

been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise from the nature of the

acts and the surrounding circumstances.

It also makes no difference what the person or persons with whom the defendant actually

conspired had in mind, so long as the defendant believed that he/she was furthering the

commission of the crime of ___________________.

In order to find a defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy, the State does not have to

prove that he/she actually committed the crime of racketeering . However, to decide whether the

State has proven the crime of conspiracy you must understand what constitutes the crime of

racketeering.

(IF NOT PREVIOUSLY STATED GIVE MODEL CHARGE

FOR THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE OF N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2a/b/c)

CONSPIRACY – RACKETEERING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d))

A conspiracy may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is not essential that

there be direct contact among all of the conspirators or that they enter the agreement at the same

time.

If the defendant is aware that any person he/she conspired with also conspired with others

to commit the same crime, the defendant is guilty of conspiring with the others. He/She need not

be aware of their identity.

Mere association, acquaintance, or family relationship with an alleged conspirator is not

enough to establish a defendant’s guilt of conspiracy. Nor is mere awareness of the conspiracy.

Nor would it be sufficient for the State to prove only that the defendant met with others, or that

they discussed names and interests in common. However, any of these factors, if present, may

be taken into consideration along with all other relevant evidence in your deliberations.

You have to decide whether the defendant’s purpose was that he/she or a person with

whom he/she was conspiring would commit the crime of racketeering. For him/her to be found

guilty of conspiracy, the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when he/she agreed it

was his/her conscious object or purpose to promote or make it easier to commit the crime(s) or

racketeering.

In summary, the State must prove the following elements:

(1) That the defendant agreed with another person or persons that they or

one or more of them would engage in conduct whic h constitutes a

crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime;

OR

That the defendant agreed to aid another person or persons in the

planning or commission of a crime or of an attempt or solicitation to

commit a crime.

OR

That the defendant agreed to participate in the conduct of a charged

enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering.

AND

(2) That the defendant’s purpose was to promote or facilitate the

commission of the crime of racketeering.

(CHARGE IN ALL CASES)

CONSPIRACY – RACKETEERING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2(d))

If y ou find that the State has proven each one of these elements beyond a reasonable

doubt, then you must find defendant guilty.

If you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable

doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.

If, after consideration of all the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt

that the State has proven each and every one of the elements, then you must find the defendant

guilty of the crime of conspiracy. On the other hand, if you find that the State has failed to prove

to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of these elements, then you must

find the defendant not guilty of the crime of conspiracy.

(CHARGE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WHEN APPROPRIATE)

Each offense and each defendant in this indictment should be considered by you

separately. The fact that you may find a particular defendant guilty or not guilty of a particular

crime should not control your verdict as to any other offense charged against that defenda nt, and

it should not control your verdict as to the charges against any other defendant.