the mere solicitation of a bribe by or on behalf of an
officer, without payment being made, did not constitute
bribery. State v. Begyn, 34 N.J. 38, 48 (1961). Under
precode law, this result was statutorily modified in
certain instances to make clear that a mere offer, by itself,
or a mere solicitation, by itself, constitutes bribery, even
if money or other consideration is not paid. II Final Report
of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission,
“Commentary” (1971) at 263, 264; accord, United States
v. Walsh, 700 F.2d 846, 855 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
464 U.S. 825 (1983); State v. Carminati, 162 N.J. Super.
234, 247 (Law Div. 1978).
The offense is reciprocal in that “[b]oth the offeror
and the recipient are guilty of the offense....” State v.
Begyn, supra, 34 N.J. at 48; see II Final Report of the New
Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, “Commentary”
(1971) at 263. Moreover, “it makes no difference
whether the official action bargained for thereafter
actually takes place.” State v. Begyn, supra.
Each actor must be judged by what the actor thought
he was doing and what he meant to do, not by how the
actions were viewed by the other party. State v.
Schenkolewski, 301 N.J. Super. at 140.
The offer may relate to affairs outside of New Jersey.
In State v. Carminati, 162 N.J. Super. 234 (Law Div.
1978), defendants who offered $1,000 to a police officer
in exchange for confidential information compiled by the
New York State Police were properly charged with
bribery. The court noted that while a police officer has
no authority to act in the capacity of a police officer
outside New Jersey (except in fresh pursuit circum-
stances), his duty to enforce the law includes a duty to
refrain from interfering with the enforcement of law in
another jurisdiction, as well as the duty not to aid or abet
others in another jurisdiction to avoid or evade the
process of law.
2. “Benefit” means
Gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the
beneficiary as gain or advantage, including a pecuniary
benefit or a benefit to any other person or entity in whose
welfare he is interested. (N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1a).
This broad definition of “benefit” surely includes the
acceptance of money or the appointment to a public job.
State v. Woodward, 298 N.J. Super. 390, 394 (App. Div.
1997).
A jury is free to conclude that any material object,
however small its value, constitutes the offer to confer a
“benefit” under the bribery statute; for the intended
recipient is to receive some thing not previously
possessed. State v. Jenkins, 255 N.J. Super. 482, 485
(App. Div. 1992), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 14 (1992).By employing this definition, the Code carries forth
precode law which held that a bribery is committed even
if the money paid went to a recipient other than the
solicitor, but in whose welfare the solicitor was interested.
State v. Sherwin, 127 N.J. Super. 370, 385 (App. Div.
1974), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 569 (1974); State v.
Smagula, 39 N.J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 1956).The same proofs cannot establish both the “benefit”
element of bribery under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 and the
“harm” element of the offense of threats in official matters
under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-3. State v. Scirrotto, 115 N.J. 38,
48-49 (1989).3. “Benefit as consideration” means
Any benefit not authorized by law. (N.J.S.A. 2C:27-
2)The crime of bribery does not apply to situations
where the law explicitly contemplates payment of fees for
services rendered by a public servant. II Final Report of the
New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission,
“Commentary” (1971) at 264.By using the word “consideration,” the Legislature
apparently intended to carry forth the precode law which
held that, with respect to the offeror, the State must prove
his intent to subject the official action of the recipient to
the influence of personal gain or advantage rather than
public welfare; and, with respect to the donee, the State
must prove his intent to use the opportunity to perform
a public duty as a means of acquiring unlawful personal
benefit or advantage. II Final Report of the New Jersey
Criminal Law Division Commission, “Commentary”
(1971) at 265; see State v. Begyn, 34 N.J. 35, 48 (1961).Moreover, according to the Commentary, supra, the
use of the term “consideration” was intended to “prevent
... application of the bribery sanction to situations where
gifts are given in the mere hope of influence, without any
agreement by the donee.” II Final Report of the New Jersey
Criminal Law Revision Commission, “Commentary”
(1971) at 265. However, this portion of the commentary
was premised upon a preliminary draft of the statute