EVIDENCE OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT[1]
(N.J.S.A. 2C:4-2)
There is an issue which pertains to
each and every one of the offenses on which I am about to instruct you (OR
which pertains to the following offenses:
[List Offenses to Which Defense Applies])] Evidence alleging that the defendant suffered
from a mental disease or defect (OR: [Insert Specific Mental
Disease or Defect Alleged])
has been produced.
(CHARGE IF APPLICABLE: Also, evidence that the defendant
suffered from insanity has been produced, as will explain to you shortly.[2]
In considering the State’s burden of
proof, which is to prove every element of the charged offense(s) beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must consider and weigh all of the evidence of
defendant’s mental state, including that offered as evidence of mental disease
or defect [OR insanity] [OR: [Insert
Specific Mental Disease or Defect Alleged]], in determining whether or
not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
that [Insert
Defendant’s Name] acted [purposely/knowingly/recklessly],
which is (are) (an) element(s) of [Insert Specific Offenses to Which
Defense Applies].
(OR that {Insert
Defendant’s Name} acted with the requisite state of mind forming any
element of the offenses charged in the indictment).
In
making this decision, you must give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable
doubt about whether his/her mental functioning was such as to
render him/her incapable of acting with the required state of mind, or about whether he/she did in fact act with the required state of mind.[3] In other words, you must determine whether,
despite the evidence of mental disease or defect [or insanity], the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted [purposely/knowingly/recklessly].[4]
If,
after considering all the evidence, including the evidence of mental
disease or defect (or insanity) (OR:[Insert Specific
Mental Disease or Defect Alleged]) or any other evidence or lack
of evidence in the case, you have a reasonable doubt whether the
defendant’s mental functioning was such as to render him/her incapable of acting with the required state of mind, or if you have a
reasonable doubt whether he/she did in fact act with the required state of mind, then the defendant is
not guilty (CHARGE IF APPLICABLE: and go on to consider the crime of ).
If, however, you find that the State
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Insert Defendant’s Name] was
able to, and did, in fact, have the required criminal state of mind (OR:
act [purposely/knowingly/recklessly]), together with all the other
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty.[5]
[1] This defense is potentially applicable
to any offense not involving strict liability, and may result in either
complete acquittal or reduction to a less culpable mental state, depending on
the facts. State v. Moore, 113 N.J. 239, 281 (1988); State v.
Breakiron, 108 N.J. 591, 608-10 (1987); State v. Ramseur, 106
N.J. 123, 269 (1987); State v. Juinta, 224 N.J. Super. 711
(App. Div. 1988); State v. Washington, 223 N.J. Super. 367 (App.
Div. 1988). All mental deficiencies, including conditions that cause a loss of
emotional control, may satisfy the diminished capacity defense if they can, and
the record supports an inference that they in fact did, affect the defendant’s
cognitive capacity. State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 647 (1993).
[2] State v. Delibero, 149 N.J.
90, 106 (1997), holds that courts should instruct jurors to consider all
evidence of a defendant’s mental state, including that offered as evidence of
both diminished capacity and insanity, in deciding whether the State has proven
every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
[5] State v. Harris, 141 N.J.
525, 554 (1995).
