New Jersey Section 2C:35B-12 – Proof of liability; prima facie evidence

New Jersey Section 2C:35B-12 is part of the state’s civil drug forfeiture laws, which allow individuals harmed by illegal drug use and distribution to sue those responsible. This section specifically deals with establishing liability and prima facie evidence in these civil lawsuits.

Overview of Section 2C:35B-12

Section 2C:35B-12 states that proof that a defendant illegally distributed or dispensed a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) is prima facie evidence of liability in a civil action brought under the civil drug forfeiture laws[1]. This means that such proof establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is liable for damages in the lawsuit.

Some key points about Section 2C:35B-12:

• It only applies to civil actions brought under the civil drug forfeiture laws, such as by an individual user, parent, guardian, or infant harmed by illegal CDS use.
• It does not apply to criminal prosecutions.
• Proof that establishes the presumption of liability includes a criminal conviction, guilty plea, adjudication of delinquency, or admission by the defendant.
• The presumption can be rebutted by the defendant with evidence that they did not manufacture, distribute, or dispense the specific CDS that caused the plaintiff’s damages.

Purpose and Effects of Section 2C:35B-12

The New Jersey Legislature included Section 2C:35B-12 as part of the civil drug forfeiture laws in order to facilitate civil lawsuits by individuals harmed by illegal drugs[2]. By creating a presumption of liability when there is proof of illegal drug distribution, it makes it easier for plaintiffs to establish their cases.

Prior to this law being passed in 1987, individuals struggled to bring successful lawsuits against those responsible for illegal drug markets. Section 2C:35B-12 helped ease the very high burden of proof that had prevented many legitimate suits from proceeding[3].

With the presumption established by this section, cases can move forward more easily to the phase where damages are determined. However, it does not guarantee a victory for the plaintiff. The defendant still has the opportunity to rebut the presumption by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture, distribute, or dispense the specific drugs that harmed the plaintiff.

Court Interpretations of Section 2C:35B-12

New Jersey courts have upheld and clarified Section 2C:35B-12 in several rulings over the years. Some key points from case law include:

• The presumption only applies to the liability phase of a trial, not the damages phase[4]. Plaintiffs still bear the burden of proving their damages.
• Hearsay evidence of drug convictions or guilty pleas can be used to establish the presumption[5].
• Expert testimony about the chemical structure of drugs can rebut the presumption if it shows the defendant did not deal the specific drug at issue.
• A conviction for employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme does not trigger the presumption on its own. There must be evidence tying the defendant to the specific drug that harmed the plaintiff.
• Plaintiffs are not limited to using only convictions or guilty pleas to establish the presumption. Other admissible evidence can also be used.

Relationship to Other Drug Laws

Section 2C:35B-12 is part of New Jersey’s overall statutory scheme designed to combat illegal drug trafficking and provide remedies for those harmed by it. Other related laws include:

• The Comprehensive Drug Reform Act – Provides for criminal penalties for manufacturing, distributing, and dispensing CDS.
• Drug Enforcement and Demand Reduction Penalties – Imposes fines on convicted drug offenders to fund drug enforcement and education programs.
• The Drug Dealer Liability Act – Allows users and others harmed by illegal drugs to sue dealers and manufacturers.
• Drug Free School Zones – Establishes strict penalties for drug crimes committed near schools and colleges.

While these laws focus on criminal punishment and deterrence, the civil drug forfeiture laws and Section 2C:35B-12 specifically aim to provide financial compensation to victims. The presumption of liability facilitates this goal.

Potential Issues with Section 2C:35B-12

Defense attorneys have raised some concerns about Section 2C:35B-12 over the years:

• It may encourage questionable lawsuits hoping to take advantage of the presumption. However, courts have set a high bar for the quality of evidence needed.
• It may be unfair to defendants who have to prove a negative to rebut the presumption. But the presumption is rebuttable, not conclusive.
• It risks holding defendants liable for damages caused by drugs they had no direct involvement with. However, expert testimony can rebut the presumption when drugs differ.
• It could allow hearsay evidence for convictions, violating defendants’ confrontation rights. But courts have found the evidence permissible.

Despite these concerns, Section 2C:35B-12 has largely been upheld as serving the valid public purpose of facilitating lawsuits by innocent victims of illegal drugs. But defendants also retain ample ability to present rebuttal evidence in their defense.

Conclusion

New Jersey Section 2C:35B-12 provides a powerful legal tool for plaintiffs seeking compensation for harms caused by illegal drugs. By establishing a presumption of liability when there is proof of drug distribution, it eases the historically difficult burden for victims trying to build cases. However, the presumption is rebuttable and courts have set standards to ensure defendants can still defend themselves when the specific drugs they handled are in question. Section 2C:35B-12 strikes a balance between facilitating victim compensation and preserving the rights of the accused.