Monday, August 20, 2007

HINDERING ONE’S OWN APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b)
The defendant is charged with the offense of hindering (his/her) own apprehension or prosecution, in that (he/she) is alleged to have (summarize appropriate portions of indictment).
This charge is based upon a statute which provides that:
A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder his own apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for [an offense] OR [a violation of Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes] OR [a violation of Chapter 33A of Title 17 of the Revised Statutes] (he/she) [refer to appropriate portion of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(1) thru (4)].
For you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Those elements are:
1.) that the defendant knew that (he/she) had been or was likely to be charged with (offense);
2.) that the defendant (read appropriate subsection of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(1) to (4)); and
3.) that the defendant acted with purpose to hinder (his/her) own detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, or conviction.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant must have known that (he/she) had been charged or was liable to be charged with (offense).1
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 a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect 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
1 Note that the degree of this crime upon conviction depends upon whether the offense that the defendant had been or was likely to be charged with would have constituted a crime of the second degree or greater, a crime of the third degree, or a crime of the fourth degree or less. Any issue regarding what degree of crime defendant knew that (he/she) had been or would likely be charged with must be submitted to the jury, along with definitions of the elements of the crimes or offenses that the issue of knowledge entails.
HINDERING ONE’S OWN APPREHENSION
OR PROSECUTION
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b)
Page 2 of 3
equivalent terms have the same meaning.2
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that on (date), the defendant:
(1) (suppressed, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime) OR (tampered with a document [or other source of information]), which (evidence, document, etc.) might aid in (his/her) discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
OR
(2) prevented or obstructed, by means of force or intimidation (name of person) from performing an act which might aid in (his/her) discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
OR
(3) prevented or obstructed, by means of force, intimidation or deception (name of witness or informant) from providing testimony or information which might aid in (his/her) discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
OR
(4) gave3 false information to
A.) a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer is a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of this State.4
OR
B.) a civil State Investigator assigned to the Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor.
2 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).
3 Prior to the enactment of P.L. 1999, c. 297 (December 23, 1999), this subsection read “volunteered false information . . . ,” which was read to mean taking the initiative in furnishing false information, rather than simply providing such information in response to questioning. State v. Valentin, 105 N.J. 14 (1987).
4 N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19c.
HINDERING ONE’S OWN APPREHENSION
OR PROSECUTION
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b)
Page 3 of 3
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose of hindering (his/her) apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment for (offense).
A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or a result thereof if it is (his/her) conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if (he/she) is aware of the existence of such circumstances or (he/she) believes or hopes that they exist. Someone acts purposely if (he/she) acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular objective in mind, if (he/she) really means to do what (he/she) does. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design,” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.5
Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from 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, members of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that (he/she) had a certain state
of mind when (he/she) engaged in a particular act. 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 (his/her) conduct, and from all (he/she) said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.
If after considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has proved each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict will be one of guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict must be not guilty.
5 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(1).