On December 19, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Anthony Gibson. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 concerned whether a public official’s working a separate job while receiving paid sick leave could support an Official Misconduct conviction.
Presiding Judge Sabatino wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant part: Applying these principles to the circumstances here, we conclude as a matter of law that defendant’s conduct, although it was a crime of theft, did not “constitute” the “unauthorized exercise of his official functions.” (Emphasis added). His behavior in accepting the sick pay benefits did not entail any of the customary functions of a police officer or detective, such as responding to police dispatches, investigating possible criminal activity, tracking down and interviewing witnesses, arresting or interrogating suspects, seizing physical evidence, procuring search warrants, preparing and compiling police reports, and the like. He did not interact with the public acting, or pretending to act as, a law enforcement official. He was not functioning as a police officer. Nor was he portraying himself to others as acting in an official police capacity, as was the case in some of the cited opinions.
As we noted above, while working as a private security guard, defendant wore a uniform with a badge that clearly indicated he was an employee of St. Michael’s hospital, not the NPD. In addition, his duties on the premises were limited and NPD officers would be summoned to the scene in various situations. In short, he was not engaged in what “constitutes” the “official” functions of a municipal police officer.
In construing the statute in this manner, we are guided in part by the rule of lenity, which generally requires that criminal statutes be strictly construed such that “words are given their ordinary meaning and that any reasonable doubt is decided in favor of the defendant.” State v. Olivero (2015). The circumstances here do not clearly transgress subsection (a)’s requirement that the defendant engage in the “unauthorized exercise of his official functions.” By working as a private security guard while on sick leave status, defendant was not manifestly engaged in “official functions.” There is no evidence he was holding himself out to people at the hospital as a city police officer.
Simply put, subsection (a) does not encompass these particular facts. Based on these legal reasons, we are constrained to vacate defendant’s conviction of official misconduct under count two of the indictment. In doing so, we should not be understood as condoning in any way defendant’s dishonest behavior and his improper receipt of taxpayer-funded sick pay that he did not deserve. That wrongdoing was properly found by the jury to be the commission of theft. Nor do we rescind or foreclose the imposition of civil or administrative sanctions as disciplinary measures. The conviction of count two is accordingly vacated.
Essex County has a reputation for having a “defendant friendly” jury pool. This is probably due to its urban, high-crime areas wherein many of the residents do not trust the police. Under these circumstances, the defendant’s status as a police officer in an Essex County criminal trial likely worked against him.
