## Facts

- Louis Thomas Scirrotto, a public high school history teacher, was notified in April 1984 that his contract would not be renewed; he appealed the decision.
- While the appeal was pending, Scirrotto called the superintendent, John Mulhern, and complained about his nonrenewal while referring to a serious problem at the school that he said was “bigger” than a prior criminal scandal involving a teacher.
- Mulhern reported the call to prosecutors.
- The next day, Scirrotto met the principal, Robert Fluck, in Fluck’s office; at law enforcement’s request, Fluck wore a concealed microphone and the conversation was recorded and used at trial.
- During the meeting, Scirrotto indicated he had “a lot of dirt” on the school that would be shocking if disclosed and suggested the problem involved many people across the school community.
- The State contended Scirrotto offered to withhold public disclosure of damaging information, or to disclose it privately to school officials, in exchange for being rehired and obtaining tenure.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence primarily showing pressure to influence employment action was sufficient to prove bribery under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(b) and (d).
2. Whether a promise not to publicize damaging information (or to disclose it privately) constitutes a “benefit” to a public official under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 when the official neither sought nor accepted such forbearance.
3. Whether conduct resembling threats or coercion can be recast as bribery based solely on characterizing nondisclosure as a “benefit.”

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the bribery conviction.
- The Court held the State’s proof did not establish the “benefit” element required for bribery under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1.
- The Court concluded the evidence fit a threats/improper-influence theory more than bribery and could not be treated as bribery simply by labeling nondisclosure as a benefit.

## Legal Principles

- “Benefit” under New Jersey bribery law may be nonpecuniary, but the State must prove the defendant offered or conferred something of value “to” the public official as consideration for official action.
- Bribery (exchange of an offered/conferred benefit for official action) and threats/improper influence (coercive pressure to affect official action) are distinct statutory offenses; proof aimed at coercion does not automatically satisfy bribery elements.
- An asserted “benefit” cannot be inferred where the officials’ conduct shows they did not seek, desire, or accept the alleged advantage (e.g., promptly reporting the contact to law enforcement and cooperating in a consensual recording).

## Conclusion

Because the State failed to prove that Scirrotto offered a qualifying “benefit” to the superintendent or principal in exchange for rehiring and tenure, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a bribery conviction, and the reversal of the conviction was affirmed.


State v. Scirrotto, 115 N.J. 38, 556 A.2d 1195 (N.J. 1989)