cdTOCtest

458 (1992) (off-duty state trooper could be found to
have committed official misconduct when he donned his
uniform and feigned an arrest); State v. Bielecki, 196 N.J.
Super. 332 (App. Div. 1984), certif. denied, 99 N.J. 216
(1984) (defendant’s false swearing before the grand jury
related to his office as chief of police, because the grand
jury was investigating allegations that members of the
police department were misappropriating property
donated to the municipality); see also State v. Savoie, 67
N.J. 439, 450 (1975); State v. Gora, 148 N.J. Super. 582,
594-95 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied, 74 N.J. 275
(1977); Meyerson v. Bayonne, 185 N.J. Super. 437 (App.
Div. 1982); Querques v. Jersey City, 198 N.J. Super. 566,
569 (App. Div. 1985).

F. Relationship With Bribery

Bribery and official misconduct are related offenses in
that a public servant, by one act, often commits both
crimes. Nevertheless, bribery is not an element of official
misconduct, and where bribery and misconduct charges
are based on the same factual allegations, the jury’s
decision to acquit on the former, but to convict on the
latter, does not necessarily mean that its verdict is
inconsistent. State v. Peterson, 181 N.J. Super. 261 (App.
Div. 1981), certif. denied, 89 N.J. 413 (1982).

G. Evidential Issues

The evidence of guilt may be circumstantial. In State
v. Witte, 13 N.J. 598 (1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 951
(1954), the defendant, a chief of police, was convicted of
misconduct in office premised upon his alleged wilful
failure to detect, apprehend, arrest, and strive for the
conviction of persons who were violating the gambling
laws. The State’s case-in-chief included evidence of
uninterrupted widespread gambling in the municipality
where defendant served as chief of police during the
period covered by the indictment. The Court concluded,
“[t]hat this condition could have existed so long without
the knowledge of the chief of police would seem to be
incredible.” Id. at 615. It sustained the sufficiency of the
State’s proofs.

Multiple charges of bribery and official misconduct
may properly be joined for one trial if there is a common
conspiratorial relationship or common evidential strings.
In State v. Coruzzi, 189 N.J. Super. 273, 300-01 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 94 N.J. 531 (1983), the Appellate
Division held that the trial court did not err by failing to
sever charges of bribery and official misconduct which
arose from three criminal transactions because there was
a common conspiratorial relationship, and also because

the multiple acts of misconduct were important to the

case in terms of explaining the defendant’s nonchalance

in accepting one of the cash payments.

H. Accomplice Liability

It is now firmly settled that a private person may be

an accomplice to official misconduct. State v. Hinds, 143

N.J. 540, 550 (1996); State v. Schenkolewski, 301 N.J.

Super. 115, 143 (App. Div. 1997); State v. Bryant, 257

N.J. Super. 63, 66-67 (App. Div. 1992).