including county detectives and assistant prosecutors, see
Skolski v. Woodcock, 149 N.J.Super. 340 (App. Div. 1977),
and County Prosecutor v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen
Freeholders, 159 N.J.Super. 258 (App. Div.), certif. granted
and remanded, 77 N.J. 511 (1978). As to the removal of
police officers charged with or convicted of crimes, see
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.1 et seq., and Connell v. Board of
Review, 216 N.J.Super. 403 (App. Div. 1987). As to the
removal of judges for misconduct, willful neglect of duty,
incompetence or unfitness, see In re Coruzzi, 95 N.J. 557,
appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 802 (1984).
RESISTING ARRESTRESISTING ARRESTRESISTING ARRESTRESISTING ARRESTRESISTING ARREST
(See also, FLIGHT, ELUDING, ESCAPE,
SELF-DEFENSE, this Digest)
I. GENERALLY
Prior to adoption of the New Jersey Code of Criminal
Justice, resisting arrest was a common law misdemeanor
likened to obstruction of justice and prosecuted under
N.J.S.A. 2A:85-1; it was also proscribed by ordinances in
most municipalities. State v. Blanton, 166 N.J. Super. 62
(App. Div. 1979), certif. denied, 81 N.J. 265 (1979); II
Final Report of the N.J. Criminal Law Revision Commission
283 (1971); see State v. Cassatly, 93 N.J. Super. 111 (App.
Div. 1966).In formulating N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a the N.J. Criminal
Law Revision Commission rejected the Model Penal Code
view that mere nonsubmission should not be an offense,
believing that an affirmative policy of submission was
appropriate as well as a continuation of prior law as
exemplified by State v. Mulvihill, 57 N.J. 151 (1970); State
v. Washington, 57 N.J. 151 (1970); State v. Koonce, 89 N.J.
Super. 169 (App. Div. 1965). II Final Report of the N.J.
Criminal Law Revision Commission 282 (1971). The Code,
both as proposed and adopted, provides that a person is
guilty of resisting arrest if he “purposely prevents a law
enforcement officer from effecting a lawful arrest.” State v.
Blanton, supra. Thus, this statue deals with purposeful
conduct. By contrast, the aggravated assault statute,
N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a), provides for the alternative
culpability elements of purposely, knowingly or recklessly
committing a simple assault on a law enforcement officer
acting in the performance of his duty while in uniform or
exhibiting evidence of his authority. State v. Murphy, 185
N.J. Super. 72 (Law Div. 1982).The code divides resisting arrest into two categories:
(1) a person is guilty of a fourth degree crime if he uses or
threatens to use physical force or violence against the officer
or another, or uses any other means to create a substantial
risk of causing physical injury to the officer or another; (2)
a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if he
purposely seeks to prevent a police officer from effecting an
arrest. Thus, the use of actual force or conduct which risks
causing injury is not necessary to constitute a disorderly
persons offense, and mere flight may be sufficient if it
constitutes an overt act of obstruction. See State v. Blanton,
supra. The code establishes a duty to submit and not resist,
consistent with the common law. Id. ; see State v. Koonce,
supra; State v. Lawrence, 142 N.J. Super. 208 (App. Div.