State v. Maldonado

In State v. Maldonado, 137 N.J. 536, 645 A.2d 1165 (1994), the Court applied a multi-step analysis and held that imposing separate sentences for a drug distribution conviction in a school zone under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, and for a drug death conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-9, did not violate double jeopardy because "neither legislative intent nor constitutional limitations" required that the defendant's convictions for these offenses be merged. Maldonado, supra, 137 N.J. at 583, 645 A.2d 1165. Applying the three step approach the Maldonado Court considered first whether the legislature intended to impose multiple punishments. It concluded that the legislative intent was unclear. Under that test, the court must "determine whether the defendant is unconstitutionally faced with multiple punishment for the 'same' offense." Maldonado, supra, 137 N.J. at 580, 645 A.2d 1165. Applying this test, the Maldonado Court determined that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit multiple punishments for school zone and drug death convictions because the offenses had different elements and were not therefore "the same offense." Maldonado, supra, 137 N.J. at 582-83, 645 A.2d 1165. In State v. Maldonado, upholding the imposition of strict criminal liability on manufacturers and distributors of controlled dangerous substances when death results from their ingestion, the Court commented: Absolute liability for regulatory offenses traditionally finds justification in administrative convenience, the need to deter through the most effective forms of prosecution, dispensing with proof of intent, and imposing relatively minor punishment, all adding up to a conclusion that whatever injustice results from strict liability is more than counterbalanced by benefit to the public. Id. at 550, 645 A.2d 1165.