State in Interest of J. M., In re

• Decision Date: 08 February 1971
• Citation: 273 A.2d 355,57 N.J. 442
• Parties: In re STATE of New Jersey, Complainant-Appellant, In the Interest of J.M., Juvenile-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 442

57 N.J. 442

273 A.2d 355

In re STATE of New Jersey, Complainant-Appellant In the Interest of J.M., Juvenile-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Jan. 12, 1971.

Decided Feb. 8, 1971.

George A. Cluff, Asst. Prosecutor, for appellant (Joseph D. J. Gourley, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney).

Edward Weisslitz, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for respondent (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

The juvenile was adjudged delinquent upon a complaint which alleged he 'was in possession of narcotics paraphernalia, namely a hypodermic needle and an eye-dropper.' The Appellate Division reversed. We granted certification. 57 N.J. 132, 270 A.2d 35 (1970).

The complaint did not specify which subsection of N.J.S.A. 2A:4--14, which defines juvenile delinquency, was offended by the conduct with which the juvenile was charged. Although neither the complaint nor the judgment referred to subsections 'a' or 'b' which deal with delinquency in terms of acts punishable when committed by a person of the age of 18 years or over, the Appellate Division nonetheless concluded the case was tried in the light of N.J.S.A. 2A:170--77.5, which makes it a disorderly persons offense to possess 'a hypodermic syringe, hypodermic needle or any other instrument adapted for the use of narcotic drugs by subcutaneous injections with intent to use such syringe, needle or instrument for such purpose.' Thus approaching the case, the Appellate Division concluded the evidence would not warrant a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to use the needle and eyedropper for such purpose.

We think the Appellate Division erred for two reasons. The first is that the evidence was maple to justify a finding of possession with intent to use the paraphernalia for subcutaneous injection of narcotics. An eyedropper and a hypodermic needle in combination are peculiarly adapted for such use of narcotics, and when the fact that those instruments were secreted in the lining of the juvenile's jacket is added, an intent to use the paraphernalia for that purpose is readily inferred. The second reason is that the possession of narcotics paraphernalia with an awareness of their character is itself ample basis for the intervention of the court under subsection 'm' of N.J.S.A. 2A:4--14 which covers 'Deportment endangering the morals, health or general welfare of said child.' A juvenile who has narcotics paraphernalia secreted upon his person is very much in need of present help. That conduct in itself is a danger to the morals, health and general welfare of the child, even without a present intent to use the equipment.

The Appellate Division decided this case before our decision in State in Interest of A.R., 57 N.J. 71, 269 A.2d 529 (1970). There the child was charged with sniffing Carbona fluid. There, as here, the complaint did not specify the subsection of N.J.S.A. 2A:4--14 which the draftsman of the complaint had in mind, and there, as here, there was no reference to a statute making such conduct punishable in the case of a person of the age of 18 years or over. In rejecting the contention that the notice of charges required by due process was...