Opinion ID: 6352822
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant was a “public servant” within the

Text: meaning of the statute (2) who, with the purpose to obtain a benefit or deprive another of a benefit, (3) committed an act relating to but constituting an unauthorized exercise of her office, (4) knowing that such act was unauthorized or that she was committing such act in an unauthorized manner. [State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 58 (2015).] “[T]here is no requirement that the defendant’s activity be criminal under any other section of the Code in order to constitute the crime of official misconduct” under N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2. Cannel, N.J. Criminal Code Annotated, cmt. 2 on N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 (2022). “The benefit need not be to the public official; it may be paid to a third party.” Id. at cmt. 3. The State alleged that defendant committed the offense of official misconduct in two respects: first, by accessing police reports about the targets of the drug distribution network and disclosing information to unauthorized persons outside of the Camden County Police Department; and second, by 35 disclosing information from the intelligence briefing to unauthorized persons outside of the Department.