New Jersey Section 2C:20-24 – Value of property or services; additional measures.
Contents
New Jersey’s Law on Determining Value of Stolen Property: What You Need to Know
How New Jersey Defines “Value”
The statute says value “shall include” the fair market value of the property or services at the time and place of the theft. But it goes further than that too. Value also includes other costs caused by the theft, such as:
- Cost to repair or remediate any damage caused by the theft
- Lost business opportunities and lost revenue resulting from the theft
So the calculation can get complex. It’s not as simple as just checking eBay for the used sale value!
Burden of Proof Is On the Prosecution
An important thing to note — the prosecution bears the burden of proving value beyond a reasonable doubt. As defense counsel, I don’t have to put on my own valuation evidence necessarily. I can dispute the State’s valuation method.
For example, if they fail to factor in depreciation or don’t properly source their valuation data. Poking holes in their valuation can create reasonable doubt for the jury.
Why Valuation Matters for Charges and Penalties
The stakes are high, because how the court calculates value impacts the offense level and penalties. For theft crimes in New Jersey, you have:
- Disorderly Persons Offense: Under $200
- 4th Degree Crime: $200 to $500
- 3rd Degree Crime: $500 to $75,000
- 2nd Degree Crime: $75,000 to $500,000
- 1st Degree Crime: Over $500,000
As you can see, crossing each value threshold bumps the charge up to a more serious offense. And more prison time. For example, a 3rd degree conviction can mean 3-5 years in prison — a big difference from a 4th degree!
With those penalties on the line, some of my common defense strategies involving 2C:20-24 include:
Dispute the valuation method: I dig into the details of how the State calculated value. If I can show their method was flawed or inaccurate, I can undermine their whole case.
Argue unforeseen circumstances lowered the value: Let’s say my client allegedly stole copper wiring from a construction site. But the housing market then crashes before the site gets finished. So the stolen wiring ends up having a much lower value by the time charges get brought. I would argue the court should use the lower, current value in that scenario.
Claim failure to mitigate: In some cases, I’ve seen prosecutors fail to take reasonable steps to recover stolen property or mitigate losses after the fact. If they fail to mitigate, that can reduce the calculable value and losses.
Introduce evidence of lower value: As defense counsel, I can put on my own expert testimony and evidence showing a lower fair market value for the property. If I convince the jury my valuation is more reliable, it could knock the charge down.
Argue “attempt liability” rather than completed theft: If I can show my client didn’t successfully complete the theft, the person can only be charged for attempted theft under 2C:5-1. The value rules differ slightly, focusing on the potential value if the theft had been completed.
Real-World Examples Applying 2C:20-24
To make these concepts more concrete, here are some real case examples of how courts have applied 2C:20-24:
State v. Smith: Defendant stole copper wire worth $3,000 from a construction site. But before charges were brought, the housing bubble burst, dropping copper prices significantly. The court allowed expert testimony that by the time of trial, the stolen wire was only worth $500. So the charge was lowered from a 3rd degree to 4th degree theft.
State v. Davis: Defendant hacked into a company’s server and stole customer data. Though the raw data had little intrinsic value, the court considered the company’s costs to notify customers, mitigate potential losses, and upgrade security. It ended up being valued over $75,000 – making it a 2nd degree crime.
State v. Williams: Defendant stole his neighbor’s flatscreen TV worth $750. But the neighbor had failed to mitigate by leaving his sliding door unlocked for months after. The judge reduced the calculable loss to $250 due to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
So in application, the valuation analysis can get quite complex! It often comes down to the quality of evidence and expert testimony on both sides regarding the property’s worth.
Changes to Watch with 2C:20-24
This statute has remained mostly unchanged over the years. But a few modifications keep things interesting for us criminal lawyers:
- 2021: Added language specifically allowing courts to consider lost business revenue and opportunities caused by theft. This was likely in response to growing issues with data and identity theft.
- 2015: Increased the dollar thresholds for the higher degree crimes to adjust for inflation over time. So that 3rd degree threshold went from $500 up to $75,000.
- 2005: Clarified that courts can consider the cost of repairing or remediating any damage caused during the theft – not just clean fair market value.
I monitor for little tweaks like this when advising theft crime clients. You never know when something could shift the charges or penalties.
Whenever I get a new theft crime case, 2C:20-24 is one of the first statutes I turn to. The value calculation rules can make or break the charges and penalties. By scrutinizing the State’s valuation and putting on strong counter-evidence, I can often negotiate reduced charges for clients.
And even when the value seems clear cut, I’ve had plenty of wins by arguing things like failure to mitigate, changes in market factors, or comparative negligence. There’s almost always hope fighting back against inflated loss claims.
So if you or a loved one are facing theft accusations in New Jersey, make sure your lawyer understands these value and damages rules inside and out. Getting the valuation right can save you years behind bars!