N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1
(eff. 2/3/99)
Count _____ of this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of injuring an animal used by a law enforcement agency.
(READ INDICTMENT)
The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a)ny person who purposely maims or otherwise inflicts harm upon a dog, horse or other animal owned or used by a law enforcement agency
is guilty of a crime.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant purposely maimed or otherwise inflicted harm upon a dog, horse or other animal;
2. that the dog, horse or other animal was owned or used by a law enforcement agency; and
3. that the defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal was owned or used by a law enforcement agency.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely maimed or otherwise inflicted harm upon a dog, horse or other animal.
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
INJURING AN ANIMAL USED BY A
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1)
Page 2 of 3
acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if (he/she) believes or hopes that they exist. A person acts purposely if (he/she) acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or if (he/she) means to do what (he/she) does.
Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only 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 that the State produce witnesses to testify that a defendant 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 defendant=s acts and conduct, from all that (he/she) said and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances.
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the dog, horse or other animal that was owned or used by a law enforcement agency.
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal that was killed was owned or used by a law enforcement agency.
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 if (he/she) is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of (his/her) conduct if (he/she) is aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a result.
Like purpose, knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be
INJURING AN ANIMAL USED BY A
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1)
Page 3 of 3
determined only by inferences from conduct, words or acts.
If you find that the State has proven each element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
