Second Degree
(N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a)
Defendant is charged with endangering the welfare of a child
(Read Pertinent Count(s) of the Indictment)
The statute upon which this charge is based reads, in pertinent part:
2C:24-4a. Endangering the Welfare of Children.
Any person having a legal duty for the care of a child or who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child who [choose appropriate] engage[s] in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of a child . . . or who causes the child harm that would make the child an abused or neglected child . . . is guilty of a crime.
To find (defendant) guilty of this crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt these elements:
1. That (name of victim) was a child.
2. [SELECT APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE]
That defendant knowingly engaged in sexual conduct
OR
That defendant knowingly caused the child harm that would make the child abused or neglected;
3. [SELECT APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE]
That defendant knew that such conduct would impair or debauch the morals of the child
OR
That defendant knew that such conduct would cause the child harm that would make the child abused or neglected.
4. That defendant had a legal duty for the care of the child or had assumed
ENDANGERING THE WELFARE
OF A CHILD (Second Degree)
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a
Page 2 of 5
responsibility for the care of the child.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (name of victim) was a child.
A "child" means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the offense. The State must prove only the age of (name of victim) at the time of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not have to prove that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that (name of victim) was under the age of eighteen (18).1
[SECOND ELEMENT - SEXUAL CONDUCT]
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly engaged in sexual conduct. Here, the State alleges that the sexual conduct committed by defendant consisted of [summarize relevant allegations] .2 [IF APPLICABLE: [summarize defense claims] .]
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendant circumstances if (he/she) is aware that the conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or the person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the conduct if (he/she) is aware that it is practically certain that the conduct will cause a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
1 See State v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540, 555 (2003).
2 If the sexual conduct has been charged in the indictment, remind the jury of the specific conduct to which the indictment refers. If the sexual conduct is not alleged in the indictment, instruct the jury on the elements of the specific sexual offense which the State alleges has been committed. See “sexual conduct” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b, 2C:14-1 and in State v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348 (1988); State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112 (1987); State v. Hess, 198 N.J. Super. 322 (App. Div. 1984); State v. Davis, 229 N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div. 1988).
ENDANGERING THE WELFARE
OF A CHILD (Second Degree)
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a
Page 3 of 5
Knowledge is a condition of the mind. It cannot be seen. It can only be determined by inference from (defendant’s) conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that (he/she) had a certain state of mind when (he/she) did a particular thing. It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of (his/her) acts and conduct and from all (he/she) said and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.
[SECOND ELEMENT - ABUSED OR NEGLECTED CHILD]
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly caused the child harm that would make the child abused or neglected.3
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendant circumstances if (he/she) is aware that the conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or the person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the conduct if (he/she) is aware that it is practically certain that the conduct will cause a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Knowledge is a condition of the mind. It cannot be seen. It can only be determined by
3 Charge the appropriate definition of an abused or neglected child as provided in N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21. In this regard, see State v. N.I., 349 N.J. Super. 299 (App. Div. 2002), which holds that the term “willfully forsaken” as used in N.J.S.A. 9:6-1 requires an intent to abandon a child permanently - “a permanent giving up or relinquishment of the child.” N.I. interprets “willfully” to mean “intentionally or purposely as distinguished from inadvertently or accidentally.” 349 N.J. Super. at 313-314, quoting State v. Burden, 126 N.J. Super. 424 (1974) at 427. Note that N.I. holds that, despite the use of the word “intent” above, the relevant mental condition is that of acting “knowingly.”
ENDANGERING THE WELFARE
OF A CHILD (Second Degree)
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a
Page 4 of 5
inference from (defendant’s) conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that (he/she) had a certain state of mind when (he/she) did a particular thing. It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of (his/her) acts and conduct and from all (he/she) said and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.
[THIRD ELEMENT - SEXUAL CONDUCT]
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant engaged in the sexual conduct knowing that it would impair or debauch the morals of the child. Sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child is conduct which tends to corrupt, mar, or spoil the morals of a child under eighteen (18) years of age. The State does not have to show that the sexual conduct actually impaired or debauched the morals of (victim). In analyzing the proofs to determine whether the evidence demonstrates that (defendant’s) conduct would tend to impair or debauch the morals of the child, evaluate the proofs in the context of objectively reasonable contemporary standards.4 I have previously defined the concept of “knowing” for you.
[THIRD ELEMENT - ABUSED OR NEGLECTED CHILD]
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knew that (his/her) conduct would cause the child harm that would make the child abused or neglected. I have previously defined the concept of “knowing” for you.
4 State v. Hackett, 166 N.J. 66, 86 (2001).
ENDANGERING THE WELFARE
OF A CHILD (Second Degree)
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a
Page 5 of 5
The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant had a legal duty for the care of the child or assumed responsibility for the care of the child. A person having a legal duty for the care of a child, or who has assumed responsibility for the care of the child, includes a natural parent, adoptive parent, foster parent, step-parent or any other person who has assumed responsibility for the care, custody or control of a child or upon whom there is a legal duty for such care. A person who has assumed the responsibility for the care of the child includes any person who assumes a general and ongoing responsibility for the child and who establishes a continuing or regular supervisory or caretaker relationship with the child.5 I have already defined “knowingly” for you.
If the State has proven each of the four elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of a child. If the State has failed to prove any of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find defendant not guilty.
5 State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (1993). Under appropriate circumstances, a person who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child may include a teacher, employee, volunteer, whether compensated or uncompensated, of an institution who is responsible for the child’s welfare, and a person who legally or voluntarily assumes the care, custody, maintenance, or support of the child. It can also include any staff person of an institution regardless of whether or not the person is responsible for the care or supervision of the child, as well as teaching staff members or other employees, whether compensated or uncompensated, of a day school. See N.J.S.A. 9:6-2; 9:6-8.21.
