(N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1a(2))
(Defendant) is charged by this indictment with bias intimidation.
[READ INDICTMENT]
Bias intimidation is a crime according to the following statute:
A person is guilty of the crime of bias intimidation if he [CHOOSE APPLICABLE] commits, attempts to commit, conspires with another to commit, or threatens the immediate commission of [SPECIFY OFFENSE] 1 knowing that the conduct constituting the [SPECIFY OFFENSE] would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY] race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
For you to find (defendant) guilty of bias intimidation, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That (defendant) committed the crime [offense] of .
2. That (defendant) committed knowing that his/her conduct constituting the crime [offense] would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY]: race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant) [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] committed, attempted to commit, conspired with another to commit, or threatened the immediate commission of . Here, (defendant) is charged with [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]: committing, attempting, conspiring, or threatening to commit
1 The offenses specified in N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1(a) are violations of Chapters 11 though 18 of Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes; N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4; N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3; N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4 or -5.
BIAS INTIMIDATION
[KNOWING INTIMIDATION]
N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1a(2)
Page 2 of 3
[SPECIFY OFFENSE]. As I told you earlier, the elements of that offense are [REPEAT ELEMENTS].
[CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]
A person is guilty of attempt if, acting purposefully, he does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his committing the crime [offense].2
[OR]
A conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in itself, separate and distinct from the [SPECIFY OFFENSE]. In other words, a person may be found guilty of a conspiracy regardless of whether he is guilty or not guilty of . For you to find that (defendant) conspired to commit an crime [offense], the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he agreed that he or someone else would engage in conduct which constitutes that offense or an attempt or solicitation to commit it, and that the conspirator’s purpose was to promote or facilitate a [SPECIFY OFFENSE].
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the (defendant) knew that the conduct constituting the underlying crime would cause an individual or group of individuals to be intimidated because of [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY] the victim’s race, color, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. “Intimidate” or “intimidation” means a situation where one person is put in fear by another.
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of the high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly as to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
2 QUAERE: Does this statute apply to an attempt to commit a disorderly persons offense, such as criminal mischief?
BIAS INTIMIDATION
[KNOWING INTIMIDATION]
N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1a(2)
Page 3 of 3
Knowingly refers to a condition of the mind. It cannot be seen. Often, it can be determined only by inferences from conduct, words or acts. Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that (defendant) stated, for example, that he/she acted knowingly when he intimidated the victim because of the victim’s [REPEAT CATEGORY CHOSEN ABOVE]. It is within your power to find that proof of a state of mind has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances. (Defendant’s) conduct and everything done or said by him/her preceding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the commission of the underlying crime are among the circumstances to be considered.
An inference is a deduction of fact which may be drawn logically and reasonably from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. Whether or not any inference should be drawn is for you to decide, using your own common sense, knowledge, and everyday experience, after you consider whether it is probable, logical, and reasonable to draw such an inference. As judge of the facts, you decide whether the facts and circumstances reflected in the evidence support any inference; you are always free to draw, or to reject, any inference.
If you decide to draw an inference as to the knowledge with which (defendant) may have acted, weigh it in connection with all other evidence that you have seen and heard. Drawing an inference does not change the burden of proof imposed upon the State; the State must prove each element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant) guilty of bias intimidation. On the other hand, if the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty.
