Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

April 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 'Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin See also: Leopold & Stevens, Inc. v. City Of Beaverton, 226 Or. App. 374, 203 P.3d 309 (2009). Sexually Oriented Business—In prosecuting owner of sexually oriented business for operating within 1,000 feet of residential zone, state instructs jury that there only need be proof of business owner's knowledge of business Business owner argues proof for indictment had to include knowledge of business proximity to residential zone Citation: State v. Eldakroury, 2015 WL 519058 (N.J.. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) NEW JERSEY (02/10/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether when seeking conviction for the crime of operating a sexually oriented business within 1,000 feet of a residential zone, the State of New Jersey must prove both that the defendant "knowingly" operated a sexually oriented business and "knew" the business was located within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. The Background/Facts: Ibrahim J. Eldakroury ("Eldakroury") was accused of operating a sexually oriented business, known as Hott 22, within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. New Jersey criminal law, N.J.S.A. 2C:34 -7(a), provides in relevant part that: "[N]o person shall operate a sexually oriented business . . . within 1,000 feet of any area zoned for residential use." In prosecuting the crime of such operation against Eldakroury, the State of New Jersey (the "State") prosecutor instructed the grand jury that the State was only required to prove that Eldakroury knowingly operated a sexually oriented business. The prosecutor in- structed that the State did not have to prove that Eldakroury knew the business was within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. After a grand jury indictment, Eldakroury asked the court to dismiss the indictment. He argued that the instructions given to the grand jury were in error. The judge agreed, concluding that the business' prohibited 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters