ENDANGERING
THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, ABUSE OR NEGLECT model jury charge
(Third Degree)
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:
Any person 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
the following elements:
1. That (name of victim) was a child.
2. That
defendant knowingly caused the (name of victim) harm that would make the child
abused or neglected;
3. That
defendant knew that such conduct would cause the (name of victim) harm that
would make the (name of victim) abused or neglected.
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 sixteen (16) years at the time of the
offense. [IF ABUSE OR NEGLECT
OCCURRED AFTER AUGUST 14, 2013, use the following definition of 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 [choose
appropriate] [under the age of sixteen (16)] [under the age of eighteen
(18)].[2]
The second
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
knowingly caused (name of victim) 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 such 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
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.
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.
If the State
has proven every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of the child. If the State has failed to prove any element
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not
guilty of endangering the welfare of a child.
[1] By
amendment effective August 14, 2013, the Legislature reconfigured the
endangering statute so that N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a(1) refers to endangering
by sexual conduct and N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a(2) refers to endangering abuse
or neglect.
[3] Charge the appropriate definition
of 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.” Id. at 313-14, quoting State v.
Burden, 126 N.J. Super. 424, 427 (1974). Finally, N.I. holds
that the relevant mental state is “knowing.” Note that certain sections of Title 9 apply
only to those with custody of a child and are not applicable to third degree
offenders.
