(N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4)
The relevant portions of the statute dealing with harassment read as follows:
[Read only relevant parts of statute]
A person commits an . . . offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:
a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;
b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.1
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
[Include only relevant alternative elements and related explanations.]
a. 1) That the defendant made one or more communications anonymously, or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or in any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; and
2) That the defendant’s purpose was to harass (name of victim), in other words, to annoy or alarm (name of victim).
You must determine whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made one or more communications in one or more of the ways described, and whether it was the defendant’s purpose to annoy or alarm (the victim).
If you find that one or more communications were made in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm, but that they were not made anonymously or at extremely inconvenient
1 See State v. B.H., 290 N.J.Super. 588, 597 (App. Div. 1996), rev’d in part and aff’d in part, 149 N.J. 564 (1997) (The subsections of the statute “address categories of conduct which can be broadly described as communications, physical contact,and course of conduct.”)
HARASSMENT
(Lesser-Included Offense)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4)
Page 2 of 3
hours or in offensively course language, then the manner of communication used by the defendant must be one that intruded into the victim’s legitimate expectations of privacy from such communications.2
OR
b. 1) That the defendant threatened to (or did)3 strike, kick, shove, or otherwise offensively touch (name of victim); and
2) That the defendant’s purpose was to harass (name of victim), in other words, to annoy or alarm (name of victim).
OR
c. 1) That the defendant engaged in a course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts; and
2) That the defendant’s purpose was to harass (name of victim), that is, to alarm or seriously annoy (name of victim).
With respect to a course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committed acts, the conduct or acts must be such that they are intended to cause alarm or serious annoyance. It is not sufficient if the course of conduct or repeated acts are merely irritating, nettlesome, or vexing.4
A purpose to harass must be coupled with the performance of at least one of the acts listed in the statute. In determining a defendant’s purpose, you must apply the definition of the word “purpose” and the related instructions that were previously given when you were instructed regarding the elements of the offense of (terroristic threats) (stalking) as charged in
2 The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the “catch-all” provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) – “any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm” – to preserve the statute’s constitutionality. The Court held that a communication under that provision must intrude upon a legitimate expectation of privacy. State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 583 (1997). Earlier in the same case, the Appellate Division had held that the degree of annoyance under subsection (a) must be “serious,” not merely nettlesome or vexing. State v. B.H., 290 N.J. Super. at 598. The Supreme Court rejected this holding, noting that subsection (a) of the statute does not include the word “serious,” while subsection (c) does. 149 N.J. at 575-81.
3 This model charge focuses primarily on verbal conduct because harassment is most often requested as a lesser-included offense for charges that do not involve physical contact, such as terroristic threats or stalking.
4 See footnote 2.
HARASSMENT
(Lesser-Included Offense)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4)
Page 3 of 3
the indictment. [The State alleges that the defendant’s purpose was . [Charge where appropriate: The defendant contends that (he/she) did not have a purpose to harass. Instead, (he/she) contends .]
If the State has failed to prove any element of harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.
On the other hand, if the State has proven each of the elements of harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of that offense.
