AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (POINTING OR DISPLAYING FIREARM AT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(9))[1] Model Jury charge
Count
of this indictment charges the defendant with
the crime of aggravated assault.
(READ INDICTMENT)
The
applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a)
person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . .
(k)nowingly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value
of human life, points or displays a firearm . . . at or in the direction of a
law enforcement officer.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the
State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that
the defendant knowingly pointed or displayed a firearm at or in the direction
of a law enforcement officer;
2. that
the defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer; and
3. that
the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the
value of human life.
The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knowingly pointed or displayed a firearm at or in the direction of a
law enforcement officer. A
firearm is defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or
semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a
weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug,
pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means
of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of
flammable or explosive substances.[2]
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 State.[3]
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
an accused 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 the 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
defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer.
As I
instructed you earlier, a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of
the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that such circumstances exist or if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the
value of human life.
The
phrase “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life” does not focus on the defendant’s state of mind but rather on the
circumstances under which you find that the defendant acted.
The
State must prove that the defendant acted in a way that showed that he/she was indifferent to whether the victim or another lived or died, that
is, that the defendant acted in a way that showed that he/she did not care that someone might be killed. Put another way, the State
must prove that the defendant’s conduct indicated that life does not matter and
constituted a pronounced, unusual or violent failure to accord any importance
or value to human life.[4]
If
you find that the State has proved each and every element of this offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of
aggravated assault. 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.
[2] The statutory definition of firearm
also includes items such as air guns and spring guns. Should the case involve
one of these items, the jury should be instructed on the full definition of
firearm contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19c.