New Jersey Section 2C:21-38 – Requisite knowledge, belief for violation.

New Jersey Section 2C:21-38 – Requisite Knowledge, Belief for Violation

New Jersey Statute 2C:21-38 deals with the requisite knowledge or belief needed for a violation of certain theft and fencing crimes in the state. This statute establishes that for crimes related to buying or selling stolen property, the state does not need to prove that the defendant knew the property was stolen. Instead, it is enough to show the defendant “believed or had reasonable cause to believe” the property was stolen.

Overview of the Statute

Section 2C:21-38 is part of New Jersey’s code of criminal justice and applies to prosecutions under 2C:20-7, which criminalizes receiving stolen property. The statute states:

The requisite knowledge or belief for a violation of [2C:20-7] is presumed in the case of a person subject to the provisions of section 1 of P.L.1985, c. 401 (C. 2C:20-7.1) who purchases or receives precious metals, jewelry or any articles made from precious metals or jewelry.

Essentially, this establishes a presumption that people in the business of buying precious metals or jewelry are presumed to know or have reason to believe that property is stolen. The state does not need to prove actual knowledge.

This presumption can be rebutted by the defendant with evidence that they did not know or have reasonable cause to believe the property was obtained illegally. However, the burden lies with the defendant once the presumption is applied.

Background and Purpose

Section 2C:21-38 was enacted in 1985 as part of New Jersey’s Fencing Law. This law created stricter regulations on dealers of precious metals and jewelry to crack down on the sale of stolen items.

Prior to the Fencing Law, prosecutors had difficulty convicting dealers of receiving stolen property because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dealer actually knew property was stolen. By establishing a presumption, 2C:21-38 makes it easier to prosecute dealers who turn a blind eye and fail to conduct due diligence.

The legislative history of the law indicates it was aimed at reducing incentives for theft by making it harder for criminals to profit from stolen goods. The Senate Judiciary Committee statement declared:

This bill attacks the problem of theft at its source — the ability to dispose of stolen property easily and profitably.

Implications and Analysis

Section 2C:21-38 has been upheld as constitutional by New Jersey courts. However, legal scholars have criticized presumptions in criminal law as unfairly shifting the burden to defendants. Under 2C:21-38, the prosecution is relieved of proving a key element of the crime, while defendants must provide exonerating evidence.

The statute also creates an unbalanced playing field between dealers and private sellers. Individuals selling property through classified ads or sites like eBay do not face any presumption of knowledge if the goods turn out to be stolen. However, professional dealers are automatically presumed to be aware of the status of goods they purchase.

On the other hand, the law has provided a useful tool for prosecutors and likely deterred some illegal trafficking of stolen merchandise. Precious metals and jewelry are common targets for theft but difficult to trace. Applying heightened regulations to dealers helps avoid an “ask no questions” environment.

Ultimately, 2C:21-38 reflects a policy trade-off between the higher standard of requiring actual knowledge versus facilitating prosecutions and disrupting criminal enterprises. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this debate.

Recent Cases and Developments

Section 2C:21-38 continues to be cited in cases involving illegal trafficking of stolen jewelry, precious metals, and other goods. For example, in State v. Singh, the owner of a pawn shop was convicted of receiving stolen property under 2C:20-7 based on the presumption under 2C:21-38. The court upheld application of the presumption because the owner was subject to regulations as a pawn shop dealer.

In State v. Marquez, the court ruled the presumption did not apply to a defendant who sold stolen jewelry to a pawn shop. Since the seller was not a regulated dealer, the state had to prove knowledge without relying on 2C:21-38.

The presumption under 2C:21-38 can significantly impact a prosecution, so defendants are sure to continue challenging its application. However, the statute remains an important tool for law enforcement in disrupting illegal fencing operations.