An attorney who refuses to represent an indigent
defendant assigned to him/her may be found in contempt
of court. In re: Spann Contempt, 183 N.J. Super. 62 (App.
Div. 1982) (mistaken belief there was valid reason for
refusal to represent not a sufficient defense); In re Frankel
Contempt, 119 N.J. Super. 579, 581 (App. Div.), certif.
den., 62 N.J. 75, (1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 1125, 93 S.Ct.
939, 35 L.Ed.2d 257 (1973); (see also, CONTEMPT, this
Digest).
RACKETEERING (RICO)RACKETEERING (RICO)RACKETEERING (RICO)RACKETEERING (RICO)RACKETEERING (RICO)
Racketeering in New Jersey is governed by N.J.S.A.
2C:41-1 et seq., which generally prohibits an individual
from conspiring to, or using or investing the income or
proceeds from, a pattern of racketeering activity in the
acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or
operation of, any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of
which affect, trade or commerce, through a pattern of
racketeering activity. It also prohibits a person employed
by or associated with such an enterprise, to conduct or
participate in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through
a pattern of racketeering activity. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-2. A
pattern of racketeering activity is statutorily defined as
engaging in two related incidents of racketeering activity
within 10 years of each other, excluding any period of
imprisonment. N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1d. “Racketeering
activity” is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1a.I. CONSTITUTIONALITY
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the New Jersey racketeering statute in
State v. Ball, 141 N.J. 142 (1995), cert. denied sub nom.,
Mocco v. New Jersey, 516 U.S. 1075 (1996). Consistent
with the caselaw of every federal circuit court of appeals to
have considered the issue with respect to the federal RICO
law, the Supreme Court concluded that the State statute,
particularly the term “pattern of racketeering activity,” was
not unconstitutionally vague, since it “makes clear that
when certain conduct that the Legislature has already made
criminal is committed in a certain way with a certain
purpose, it will carry an enhanced penalty.” Id. at 171.II. ELEMENTS
A. EnterpriseUnder federal RICO law, an “enterprise” encompasses
both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises within its scope
and is established by “evidence of an ongoing organization,
formal or informal, and by evidence that the various
associates function as a continuing unit.” United States v.
Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583 (1981). While an enterprise is
an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in
which it engaged, and proof of one would not necessarily
establish the other, the proof used to establish the separate
elements may “coalesce.” Id. Building on federal
decisional law and legislative history, the New Jersey
Supreme Court in Ball construed the term “enterprise”
broadly and found that the evidence used to prove the
existence of an enterprise need not be distinct from the