that a conviction for disorderly and petty disorderly
persons offenses “shall not give rise to any disability or legal
disadvantage based on conviction of a crime.” State v. Lore,
197 N.J.Super. 277, 283 (App. Div. 1984); accord State v.
Lee, 258 N.J.Super. at 316-17 (relying in part upon the
definition of “offense” set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14k);
State v. Pitman, 201 N.J.Super. at 26 (same); State v. Parker,
198 N.J.Super. 272, 282-83 (App. Div. 1984) (also noting
that vehicular infractions are not “offenses”), certif, denied,
99 N.J. 239 (1985). N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2e was inserted into
the forfeiture of public office statute to ameliorate its
harshness in practical applications as to some disorderly or
petty disorderly persons convictions. Flagg v. Essex County
Prosecutor, N.J. Super. , , (App. Div. 2001);
State v. Lazarchick, 314 N.J.Super. at 529; see State v. Lee,
258 N.J.Super. at 317. The Appellate Division has
indicated that the Attorney General “may” adopt
guidelines to enable prosecutors to avoid a patent and gross
abuse of discretion in seeking forfeiture of public office.
Flagg v. Essex County Prosecutor, N.J. Super. at __, ___.
- Offenses Under the Laws of Another Jurisdiction
An offense under the laws of another jurisdiction (e.g.,
sister states and the United States), which involves
dishonesty, is sufficient for the purposes of subsection a(1)
regardless of whether, under the laws of this state, the
offense would constitute a crime of the third degree or
above. See Old Bridge Public Workers and Sanitation Union
v. Family of Old Bridge, 231 N.J.Super. at 210 (Legislature
intended that forfeiture follows upon conviction of a
specified level of seriousness, whether that conviction arises
under the laws of New Jersey, another state, or the United
States). Moreover, mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1341
qualifies as a crime of dishonesty. State v. Botti, 189
N.J.Super. 127, 134-36 (Law Div. 1983); accord, State v.
Musto, 187 N.J.Super. at 277.
A comparison of foreign offenses with state statutory
offenses must proceed beyond an element-by-element
breakdown. Paramount importance must be placed upon
determining the “essence” or “gist” of the foreign
conviction. The mere fact that the elements of the foreign
crime do not exactly correspond to the elements of the New
Jersey crime does not, by itself, establish that N.J.S.A.
2C:51-2 is inapplicable. Particularly with respect to federal
crimes, all references to the elements involving interstate
commerce or the obstruction thereof should normally be
separated from the other elements since they are generally
included only for the purpose of providing federal
jurisdiction. State v. Musto, 187 N.J.Super. at 271-74.
- Pre-Title 2C Offenses
In assessing whether pre-Title 2C convictions result in
forfeiture, courts should look to see if such convictions are
for equivalent Title 2C crimes. Old Bridge Public Workers
and Sanitation Union v. Township of Old Bridge, 231
N.J.Super. at 209 (defendant’s Title 24 drug convictions
for high misdemeanors were equivalent to third degree
crimes).- Offenses Involving or Touching Upon a Public
Office, Position, or Employment
The inquiry into whether an offense involves or
touches upon public employment involves careful
examination of the facts, which consists of assessing the
gravity of the offense (its nature, context and the victim’s
identity) and the qualifications required of that
employment. Moore v. Youth Correctional Inst., 119 N.J.
256, 269 (1990); State v. Lee, 258 N.J.Super. at 316, 318.
It can so involve and touch the office even if it did not take
place during employment hours or on employment
grounds; the nexus between the offense and the job is not
limited by time and location. Rather, it is the offense’s
substance that affects the N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2a(2) and d
determination. Moore v. Youth Correctional Inst., 119 N.J.
at 269-70; State v. Baber, 256 N.J.Super. at 244. Once it is
determined that an offense does involve or touch the
individual’s office, the forfeiture provision is strict and
permanent debarment results. State v. Lazarchick, 314
N.J.Super. at 527; see Cedeno v. Montclair State Univ., 310
N.J.Super. 148, 156 (App. Div. 1999) (bribery convictions
based on acts committed in course of public office clearly
involved or touched defendant’s job); State v. Pitman, 201
N.J.Super. at 24-25 (simple assault by corrections officer
upon a county jail inmate demands forfeiture); State v.
Lore, 197 N.J.Super. at 283 (simple assault by on-duty
police officer upon a suspect demands forfeiture); see also
State v. Parker, 198 N.J.Super. at 203. The words “office,”
“position,” and “employment” as used in the statute are
interchangeable. Pastore v. County of Essex, 237 N.J.Super.
371, 376 (App. Div. 1989), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 129
(1990); see Bevacqua v. Renna, 213 N.J.Super. 554, 557-62
(App. Div. 1986) (electrical subcode official kept
inspection fees due the municipality, an offense that
touched on his public office and mandated permanent
debarment). Even a greens superintendent for county golf
courses occupies a public position of trust and profit.
Pastore v. County of Essex, 237 N.J.Super. at 372, 380.