N.J. Stat. » Title 2C — THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2C:35-6 (2026)

Employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2C:35-6. Employing a Juvenile in a Drug Distribution Scheme.

Any person being at least 18 years of age who knowingly uses, solicits, directs, hires or employs a person 17 years of age or younger to violate N.J.S.2C:35-4 or subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:35-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree and shall, except as provided in N.J.S.2C:35-12, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which shall include the imposition of a minimum term which shall be fixed at, or between, one-third and one-half of the sentence imposed, or five years, whichever is greater, during which the defendant shall be ineligible for parole. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, the court may also impose a fine not to exceed $500,000.00 or five times the street value of the controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog involved, whichever is greater.

It shall be no defense to a prosecution under this section that the actor mistakenly believed that the person which the actor used, solicited, directed, hired or employed was 18 years of age or older, even if such mistaken belief was reasonable.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude or limit a prosecution or conviction for a violation of any offense defined in this chapter pursuant to N.J.S.2C:2-6 or any other provision of law governing an actor's liability for the conduct of another, and, notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other provision of law, a conviction arising under this section shall not merge with a conviction for a violation of N.J.S.2C:35-3 (leader of narcotics trafficking network), N.J.S.2C:35-4 (maintaining or operating a CDS production facility), N.J.S.2C:35-5 (manufacturing, distributing or dispensing), or N.J.S.2C:35-9 (strict liability for drug induced death).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: People v. Cornett, 274 P.3d 456 (Cal. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Cornett, 274 P.3d 456 (Cal. 2012). “11, § 4209 (e)(l)s [statute still reads “14 years of age or younger”]; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-6 [statute still reads “17 years of age or younger”]; Ark.”
State of New Jersey v. Kashif K. Patterson, 89 A.3d 616 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014). “2C:43- 6 states that "this section is designed to incapacitate drug 8 Subsection 6(f) similarly lists N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6, even though it requires a defendant to employ a juvenile to violate "N.”
State v. Dillihay, 601 A.2d 1149 (N.J. 1992). “2C:35-5 * * * or N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6. [ N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (emphasis added).”
State v. S.C., 672 A.2d 1264 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 2× “*67 N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6, Employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, provides in pertinent part: Any person being at least 18 years of age who knowingly uses, solicits, directs, hires or employs a person 17 years of age or younger to violate N.”
State ex rel. M.A., 547 A.2d 724 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 2× “Section 2C:35-3, which concerns the leader of a narcotic’s trafficking network, section 2C:35-6, respecting the use of a juvenile to distribute drugs and section 2C:35-7, involving the presence of drugs at or near a school, all contain specific provisions barring the application…”
State of New Jersey v. Diego Arroyo-nunez (19-04-0265, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 3× “N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6: Employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme 5.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Raheem a. Pamplin (08-12-2231, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “2C:35-5(a)(1) and -5(b)(2) (count one); second-degree employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 (count two); second-degree possession of a firearm during a drug offense, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. John Mcneal (10-01-0082, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “2C:35-3; second-degree employing a 3 A-0674-14T1 juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5; and second-degree possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances within 500 feet of a public park, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Enzo R. Pena(13-04-1041, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “2C:39-4(a); and five counts of second-degree employing a juvenile to distribute drugs, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty years in prison, ten years to be served without parole.”
Almeen Palmer Vs. New Jersey State Parole Bd. (new Jersey State Parole Bd.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “2C:35-5(a)(1) (counts fifty and fifty-one); second-degree employing a juvenile to distribute drugs, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 (count fifty-two); and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Raheem a. Pamplin (07-12-4002 & 08-01-0126, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(2) (count one); second- degree employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 (count two); second-degree possession of a firearm during a drug offense, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Christopher Harris State of New Jersey Vs. Donald J. Falcone State of New Jersey Vs. Joell a. Fogg State of New Jersey Vs. Gary R. Nelson State of New Jersey Vs. Manuel Santiago State of New Jersey Vs. Thomas Edger State of New Jersey Vs. Davine J. Rice State of New Jersey Vs. Frank R. Matlack (19-12-0713, 18-08-0615, 19-08-0419, 19-10-00570, 20-01-0041, 17-10-0731, 19-10-0561, 19-12-0734, & 18-06-0455, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “2C:35-4; employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6; and drug distribution/possession with intent to distribute if the defendant has previously been convicted of such an offense, N.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.