State v. P.A.C.

In the recent case of State vs. P.A.C. New Jersey courts have explicitly held that “engag[ing] in three or more drug sales does not in and of itself make [one’s] conduct a ‘repetitive criminal activity.’” State v. P.A.C., ___N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2011) and as a result the prosecutor’s denial of Defendant’s PTI application constitutes legal error that is tantamount to a patent and gross abuse of discretion. This is a huge development for individuals who (a) do not have a criminal record, (b) are charged with possession of CDS and or possession of CDS with intent to distribute as a result of small drug purchases in drug zones. This recent change inthe law is a substantial development which will aid defendants avoid prosecution and get into alternative recovery programs much more easily.