cdTOCtest

N.J. Super. 134, 138-45 (Ch. Div.), aff’d., 36 N.J. 129
(1961).

XXVI. PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND

SURGERY OR PODIATRY BY AN UNLI-

CENSED PERSON

It is a third degree crime for a person who knowingly
does not possess a license to practice medicine and
surgery, or podiatry, or knowingly has had the license
suspended, revoked, or otherwise limited by an order
entered by the New Jersey State Board of Medical
Examiners, to

a. engage in the practice of medicine and surgery or
podiatry;

b. exceed the scope of practice permitted by the
board order;

c. hold himself out to the public or any person as
being eligible to engage in such practice;

d. engage in any activity for which such license is a
necessary prerequisite, including, but not limited to, the
ordering of controlled dangerous substances or
prescription legend drugs from a distributor or
manufacturer; or

e. practice medicine, surgery or podiatry under a
false or assumed name or falsely impersonates another
person licensed by the board. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-20.

In a case where defendant was charged with engaging
in the practice of medicine under subsection a. and
holding himself out to the public or any person as being
eligible to engage in that practice under subsection d. of
the statute, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that
authorization forms informing the victim that defendant
was not a doctor “flatly contradict[ed] the principle
element” of the second charge under subsection d. State
v. Womack, 145 N.J. 576, 589, cert. denied, 519 U.S.
1011 (1996). Since the “highly probative” medical
forms evidence was known to the investigating agent and
the prosecutor, it should have been submitted to the
grand jury. Id.

The Court in Womack also held that if the State and
trial court intended to punish defendant by imposing a
civil fine against him prior to the State’s institution of
criminal proceedings for the same conduct, then the
criminal prosecution would be barred on double

jeopardy grounds. Id. at 582-85. However, the State

could still avoid the double jeopardy bar by returning the

punitive portion of the civil fine to the defendant and

then moving forward with the criminal proceeding. Id.

at 585-86.

XXVII. SOUND RECORDINGS - ANTI-

PIRACY

In 1991, the Legislature repealed the existing law

concerning the unlawful making or distribution of sound

recordings without consent of the owner. See N.J.S.A.

2A:111-52 through -55 (repealed). Due to

technological advances, those statutes no longer afforded

adequate protection relating to sound recordings and

later developed recording media. Assembly, Judiciary, Law

Public Safety Committee Statement, Assembly L. 1991, c.

125.

A. Definitions

“Sound recording” is defined as any phonograph

record, disc, tape, film, wire, cartridge, cassette, player

piano roll or similar material object from which sounds

can be reproduced either directly or with the aid of a

machine. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-21b(1).

“Owner” is defined as (a) the person who owns the

sounds fixed in any master sound recording on which the

original sounds were fixed and from which transferred

recorded sounds are directly or indirectly derived; or (b)

the person who owns the rights to record or authorize the

recording of a live performance. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-21b(2).

“Audiovisual work” is defined as any work that

consists of a series of related images, which are

intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines

or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic

equipment, together with accompanying sounds, if any,

regardless of the nature of the material object, such as film

or tape, in which the work is embodied. N.J.S.A. 2C:21-

21b(3).

B. Offenses

Four offenses are created under this section.

The first offense applies only to sound recordings

initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972. N.J.S.A.

2C:21-2(c)(1). It is a crime to knowingly transfer,

without consent of the owner, any sounds recorded on a

sound recording with intent to sell that recording or to

use it to promote the sale of any product. Id. The state