Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 7 <br />location (within 1,000 feet of a residential zone) was a material element <br />of the offense, and that the State had to also prove that Eldakroury acted <br />knowingly with respect to that element. <br />The State appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. <br />The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, agreed with the <br />superior court judge. It concluded that the location of the business was a <br />material element of the offense and that the State had to also prove that <br />Eldakroury acted knowingly with respect to that element. <br />In so concluding, the court noted that the statute concerning sexually <br />oriented businesses, N.J.S.A. 2C:34 -7(a), did not include a strict liability <br />provision like statutes concerning illegal drug activity or assault by auto <br />in protected zones. Since it was not a strict liability statute, the mens rea <br />(knowingly) standard applied "to each material element." (N.J.S.A. <br />2C:202(a).) Finding the location of a sexually oriented business was a <br />material element of the offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:34 -7(a), the court <br />concluded that the State was required to prove that Eldakroury not only <br />knew he was operating a sexually oriented business, but also that he knew <br />that the business *as within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Since the <br />instructions to the grand jury on proof lacked that requirement, the court <br />determined that dismissal of the case was proper. <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court had also noted that even if it `found the statute hope- <br />lessly ambiguous" as to whether strict liability or the knowingly standard ap- <br />plied, it would have to invoke the rule of lenity, with any ambiguity with respect <br />to the mens rea requirement having to be resolved in Eldakroury's favor. <br />Proceedings—At hearing on <br />zoning amendments, commission <br />allegedly prohibits discussion on <br />specific property and owner <br />Opponentsof amendments argued that <br />prohibition resulted in a legally insufficient <br />public hearing <br />Citation: Campbell v. County Commission of Franklin County, 2015 <br />WL 468225 (Mo. 2015) <br />MISSOURI (02/03/15)—This case addressed the issue of what consti- <br />© 2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />