N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1
(eff. 2/3/99)
If you find the defendant nor guilty of (insert offense charged in the indictment) , you must consider the lesser-included offense of interfering with a law enforcement officer using an animal.
The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a)ny person who interferes with any law enforcement officer using an animal in the performance of his official duties . . .
commits an offense.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that was a law enforcement officer using an animal in the performance of (his/her) official duties;
2. that the defendant knew that was a law enforcement officer using an animal in the performance of (his/her) official duties;
3. that the defendant interfered with ; and
4. that the defendant knew that (he/she) was interfering with .
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that was a law enforcement officer using an animal in the performance of (his/her) official duties.
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
1 This charge is intended for use in those situations in which this disorderly persons offense is a lesser-included offense of a crime charged in the indictment.
INTERFERING WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER USING AN ANIMAL - LESSER INCLUDED
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1)
Page 2 of 3
State.2
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that was a law enforcement officer using an animal in the performance of (his/her) official duties.
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.
Knowledge 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 third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant interfered with . Here, the State contends that the defendant (describe the conduct allegedly engaged in by the defendant) . On the other hand, the defendant contends that (describe the defendant’s contentions) .
The final element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that (he/she) was interfering with . I have previously instructed you on
2Cf. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19c.
INTERFERING WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER USING AN ANIMAL - LESSER INCLUDED
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1)
Page 3 of 3
the meaning of a knowing state of mind.
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.
