Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:5-3 – Incapacity, irresponsibility or immunity of party to conspiracy

New Jersey Section 2C:5-3 – Incapacity, irresponsibility or immunity of party to conspiracy

New Jersey’s criminal code includes a section on the incapacity, irresponsibility, or immunity of a party to a conspiracy. This section outlines what happens when one of the co-conspirators has a legal defense that makes them not criminally responsible for the conspiracy.

Overview of NJ Section 2C:5-3

New Jersey Statute 2C:5-3 states that when a person who agrees to engage in conduct constituting a crime is legally incapable of committing the crime – whether by reason of infancy, mental disease or defect, or intoxication – they cannot be held criminally liable for conspiracy to commit the crime. However, the statute says that the person’s legal incapacity does not affect the criminal liability of their co-conspirators for the conspiracy.

In other words, if one member of a criminal conspiracy has a valid legal defense, like insanity, that makes them not criminally responsible for their actions, the other members of the conspiracy can still be charged and convicted of the conspiracy offense. The incapacitated person’s defense does not get the co-conspirators “off the hook.”

Background and Purpose

This statute reflects a public policy that conspiracies to commit crimes are dangerous criminal agreements that merit punishment, even if one of the co-conspirators turns out to have a legal incapacity. The New Jersey legislature wanted to make sure that conspirators could not avoid liability just because one member of the group had a condition that made them not legally responsible.

For example, if two people agree to commit robbery, but one of them is legally insane at the time of the agreement, the sane co-conspirator can still be convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery under 2C:5-3. The insane person’s incapacity does not absolve the sane person of responsibility for joining the criminal scheme.

Key Elements of 2C:5-3

There are a few key elements of this statute:

• It applies when a person has agreed with one or more other persons to engage in conduct constituting a crime
• One of those persons has a legal incapacity that makes them not criminally responsible for the target offense
• The incapacity can result from infancy, mental disease or defect, or intoxication
• The incapacitated person’s defense does not affect the liability of the other conspirators for the conspiracy offense

Defenses Covered

Some of the main legal incapacity defenses covered by 2C:5-3 include:

• Infancy – Children under a certain age lack criminal capacity. In NJ, no one under age 14 can be held criminally liable.
• Insanity – Those found legally insane per NJ Statute 2C:4-1 lack criminal responsibility.
• Intoxication – Involuntary intoxication can be a valid legal defense under 2C:2-8.
• Diminished capacity – NJ allows evidence of mental disease/defect to show defendant lacked state of mind required for the offense under 2C:4-2.

If any party to a conspiracy has one of these defenses, 2C:5-3 makes clear it does not get their co-conspirators off the hook for the conspiracy charge.

Relation to Conspiracy Liability Generally

In general, once an agreement to commit a crime is made, all co-conspirators are liable for the conspiracy itself and for all reasonably foreseeable acts of their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under 2C:5-2:

“a person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he…agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime.”

2C:5-3 clarifies that this liability remains even if one member of the group has a legal incapacity. The conspiracy can still be punished and deterred.

Implications and Controversies

Defense attorneys often argue that 2C:5-3 is unfair because it holds conspirators liable based on the acts of a co-conspirator who is legally incapable. They say it violates due process to convict someone of conspiracy based on an agreement with a person who cannot form criminal intent.

However, prosecutors contend that the statute is constitutional because conspiracy is an independent offense that does not require the same intent as the target crime. As long as the capable conspirators had intent to agree to commit a crime, that is enough for conspiracy liability.

The statute remains good law, but continues to be controversial in its application. Defense attorneys regularly challenge it on behalf of clients who conspired with an incapacitated person.

Real World Examples

Here are some real world examples of how 2C:5-3 has been applied:

• State v. Cagno – Defendant conspired to commit arson with a juvenile. He later argued the juvenile’s incapacity should preclude his liability. Court upheld conviction per 2C:5-3.
• State v. Roldan – Defendant claimed he couldn’t be liable for drug conspiracy because his co-conspirator was high on PCP at the time of the agreement. Court affirmed conviction under 2C:5-3.
• State v. J.R. – Minor defendant with schizophrenia argued he lacked capacity for conspiracy. Court said his incapacity was irrelevant to conspiracy liability of his sane adult co-defendant.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that under New Jersey law, legal incapacity of one conspirator does not preclude prosecution of capable co-conspirators for the conspiracy offense. This statute promotes public safety by allowing punishment of dangerous conspiracies, even when one member had a valid legal defense like insanity or minority. It remains controversial, but continues to be upheld as constitutional.