State v. Jason M. O'Donnell, 299 A.3d 700

Background

Jason M. O’Donnell ran for mayor of Bayonne in 2018 and, according to the State’s grand jury presentation, accepted $10,000 in cash in a Baskin‑Robbins bag from a cooperating individual who sought to be appointed city tax counsel.
The State indicted O’Donnell under the bribery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:27‑2(d) (criminalizing a person’s solicitation, acceptance, or agreement to accept any benefit as consideration for the performance of official duties).
The trial court dismissed the indictment, concluding the statute did not apply to a mere candidate who had no present authority to perform official duties.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding subsection (d) reaches unsuccessful candidates who accept benefits as consideration for promised official acts.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification on the statute’s scope and unanimously affirmed the Appellate Division: the bribery statute applies to any “person,” the offense is complete on solicitation/acceptance, and the statute’s no‑defense clause bars reliance on lack of qualification or not yet holding office; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:27‑2(d) applies to a candidate who is not an incumbent and is not elected	The statute criminalizes any "person" who accepts a benefit as consideration for performance of official duties, so it covers candidates	Statute does not explicitly refer to candidates; intended to apply to public servants/party officials, not unsuccessful candidates	The statute’s plain text covers any "person," including unsuccessful candidates; conviction does not require incumbent status
Whether the offense requires the recipient to be able to perform official duties at time of the payment	Offense is complete when a benefit is solicited or accepted as consideration for future official action; ability to perform later is irrelevant	No offense occurs until the person assumes office and can perform the promised duties	The offense completes on solicitation/acceptance; "consideration" includes promises and conditional future acts
Scope of the no‑defense clause — does it bar defenses based on lack of qualification and does it apply to recipients?	The no‑defense clause bars claims that the target was not qualified to act and applies to both bribe givers and recipients	The clause should not apply to recipients or to persons who cannot perform (e.g., unelected candidates)	The clause expressly disallows the "not qualified" defense and applies to both givers and receivers (supported by MPC commentary)
Constitutional challenges and rule of lenity — vagueness, ex post facto, and ambiguity	Statute is clear and gives fair notice; interpretation is consistent with prior law, so no lenity or ex post facto problem	Statute is ambiguous as to candidates; apply rule of lenity; due process and ex post facto concerns if statute is read to reach unelected candidates	Statute is unambiguous as interpreted; rule of lenity inapplicable; no vagueness or ex post facto violation given plain text, precedent, and MPC commentary

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ellis, 33 N.J.L. 102 (Sup. Ct. 1868) (common‑law bribery reaches offers to influence official action even if recipient lacked formal authority)
State v. Ferro, 128 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 1974) ("any person" language in predecessor statute reaches non‑official recipients who create an understanding to influence official duties)
State v. Schenkolewski, 301 N.J. Super. 115 (App. Div. 1997) (neither offeror nor recipient need be a public official to support bribery charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:27‑2)
United States v. Manzo, 851 F. Supp. 2d 797 (D.N.J. 2012) (district court concluded statute did not reach unelected candidates — relied on by trial court here)
McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) (due process/vagueness principles on defining official conduct and notice)
Bouie v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (judicial enlargement of a criminal statute can create ex post facto concerns)
State v. Bailey, 251 N.J. 101 (2022) (discussion of ex post facto and fair‑warning principles)