The legislative history of the 1991 amendments also convince us that the Legislature did not intend to include civil consent judgments as penalties. The amendments removed “penalties” from provisions dealing with non-payment of restitution. One of the amendments, clarifying that payment of restitution may be a condition of probation, did not include payment of a penalty as a condition of probation. The legislative intent to treat restitution and penalties separately is obvious.
All roads lead to the same conclusion. Judge Smith correctly recognized he was without authority to enter the civil consent judgment. Since the court was without statutory authority to enter the judgment, we need not address the ethical implications regarding the use of such judgments in plea negotiations.
The judgment of the Gloucester County Superior Court was affirmed. The appellate panel alluded to an ethical issue that is also a hot topic these days regarding civil forfeitures. In a nutshell, allowing defendants to offer money or property as part of the resolution of their criminal case is a roundabout way of paying the prosecutor’s office and/or victim for a desired criminal case outcome. It arguably constitutes obstruction of justice, among other criminal offenses.