State v. Kalil Cooper, 311 A.3d 493

Kalil Cooper was charged following a wiretap investigation into the Grape Street Crips for multiple crimes, including racketeering and promoting organized street crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-30.
The promoting organized street crime charge alleged Cooper conspired to commit a "pattern of racketeering activity,” referencing N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1.
At trial, Cooper objected, arguing that “pattern of racketeering activity” is not a predicate offense for the promoting statute; the trial court agreed but amended the indictment instead of striking the count.
The amended jury instruction allowed conviction based on conspiracy to distribute CDS (controlled dangerous substance) as a predicate offense for promoting organized street crime.
The jury found Cooper guilty of promoting organized street crime using conspiracy to distribute CDS as the predicate offense, and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division.
Cooper appealed, arguing that conspiracy to distribute CDS is not a valid predicate crime under the promoting statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conspiracy to distribute CDS is a permissible predicate offense of the promoting organized street crime statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-30)	Any error in using conspiracy to distribute CDS is harmless; the statute encompasses such conspiracy offenses	The statute limits predicates to enumerated crimes and does not include conspiracy; double inchoate crimes (i.e., conspiracy to conspire) are not recognized	Conspiracy to distribute CDS is not a predicate under the statute; conviction must be vacated
Whether the erroneous jury instruction required reversal or was harmless error	Instruction was not prejudicial; defendant was on notice of underlying offenses	Error was preserved through objections; conviction based on a nonexistent crime is manifestly unjust	Error was not harmless; verdict and conviction are invalid, and the count is vacated
Whether defendant preserved his objection to the jury charge for appeal	Defendant did not properly preserve issue, so plain error standard should apply	Defendant objected multiple times before and during trial, preserving the issue	The issue was properly preserved; harmless error standard applies
Whether a conviction can stand for a crime not recognized by statute (a double inchoate crime)	Did not directly address legality of double inchoate crimes	Such crimes are not recognized under New Jersey law	Court does not reach this question, but conviction cannot stand for crime not recognized by statute

Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chems. Inc., 251 N.J. 300 (standard for de novo review of legal determinations)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (statute interpretation principles)
W.S. v. Hildreth, 252 N.J. 506 (statutory language controls unless ambiguous)
Das v. Thani, 171 N.J. 518 (importance of clear and accurate jury instructions)
State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281 (jury instructions are critical for fair trial)
State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 45 (jurors presumed to follow instructions)