SIMPLE ASSAULT (Bodily Injury)(Lesser
Included Offense)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1))
The law requires that the Court instruct the jury with
respect to possible (lesser) included offenses, even if they are not contained
in the indictment. Just because the Court is instructing you concerning these
offenses does not mean that the Court has any opinion one way or another about
whether the defendant committed these, or any, offenses. You should consider
these offenses along with those for which the defendant is indicted. However,
you are not to render a verdict on these offenses or answer the questions on
the verdict sheet unless you find that the State has failed to meet its burden
with regard to the offense(s) in the indictment.
Simple assault is a lesser-included offense to count ______
of this indictment. The statute which defines simple assault provides that:
A person commits a simple assault if he
attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to
another.
In
order for you to convict the defendant of this offense, the State must prove
the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(CHARGE AS APPROPRIATE)
OPTION ONE (Causing Bodily Injury)
1. That
the defendant did cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM; and
2.
That
the defendant acted purposely or knowingly or recklessly in causing bodily
injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or another).[1]
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the
defendant caused bodily injury to another.
Bodily
injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of the physical
condition.[2]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the
defendant acted purposely or knowingly or recklessly in causing bodily injury
to NAME OF VICTIM or
(Another).
A
person acts purposely with respect to causing bodily injury to another if it is
a person's conscious object to cause bodily injury to another. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant
circumstances if a person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or a
person believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting
purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if
one really means to do what he/she does.
A person acts knowingly with respect to
causing bodily injury if a person is aware that his/her
conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or a person is
aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with
respect to a result of his/her
conduct if a person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause bodily injury. One is said to act knowingly if one acts with
knowledge, if one acts consciously, if he/she comprehends his/her
acts.
A
person acts recklessly with respect to causing bodily injury when a person
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material
element exists or will result from his/her
conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the
nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to the
actor its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct
that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. One is said to
act recklessly if one acts with recklessness, with scorn for the consequences,
heedlessly, foolhardily.
The nature of the purpose or knowledge or recklessness with which
the defendant acted toward the victim of the assault is a question of fact for you
the jury to decide. Purpose and knowledge and recklessness are conditions of
the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from
conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness
or witnesses who could testify that the defendant stated, for example, that his/her purpose was to cause bodily injury. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or
knowledge or recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding
circumstances.[3]
If you find that the State has proved
each element of the 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 the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
OPTION TWO (ATTEMPT TO CAUSE BODILY
INJURY):
1. That
the defendant attempted to cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or another); and
2. That
the defendant acted purposely.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the
defendant attempted to cause bodily injury to another.
Bodily
injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of the physical
condition.
The
second element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the defendant
purposely attempted to cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or another).
A
person acts purposely with respect to causing bodily injury if it is a person's
conscious object to cause bodily injury. A person acts purposely with respect
to attendant circumstances if a person is aware of the existence of such
circumstances or a person believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed
to be acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a
particular object, if one really means to do what he/she does.
The
law provides that a person attempts to commit the crime of simple assault if,
acting purposefully, he:
(select appropriate
section)
1. Engaged
in conduct that would constitute the offense if the attendant circumstances
were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;
(or)
2.
Did
(or omitted to do) anything with the purpose of causing bodily injury to
another without further conduct on his part. This means that
the defendant(s) did something designed to cause bodily injury without having
to take any further action.
(or)
3. Did
(or omitted to do) anything that, under the circumstances as a reasonable
person would believe them to be, was an act (or omission) constituting a
substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his
commission of the crime.
The
step taken must be one that is strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal
purpose. The accused must be shown to have had a firmness of criminal purpose
in light of the step(s) he/she had already taken. These preparatory steps must be
substantial and not just very remote preparatory acts.[4]
If
you find that the State has proved each element of the 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 the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.[5]
[1] A person can violate the provisions of
the statute under a theory of transferred intent. See N.J.S.A.
2C:2-3(d).
[2] N.J.S.A.
2C:11-1(a).
[3] If causation is an issue, the jury should
be instructed on causation. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3a(1) et. seq.
[4] If
renunciation of criminal purpose is alleged, see N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(d),
that portion of the Model Jury Charge on Attempt regarding renunciation should
also be charged.
[5] Simple Assault
is a disorderly persons offense. It is a petty disorderly persons offense if
the assault was committed in a fight or in a scuffle entered into by mutual
consent. See N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1. If a reasonable view of the evidence supports a view that
such circumstances may exist, the jury should be instructed that the State
bears the burden of proving the absence of such circumstances beyond a
reasonable doubt. Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); State v. Johnson, 166 N.J.
523 (2001). See also State v. Jordon, 86 N.J.Super. 585
(App. Div. 1965), interpreting predecessor fighting statute, N.J.S.A.
2A:170-27.
