N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(7) Model Jury charge
aggravated
assault in that (he/she/they) allegedly on in the
(Date) (Municipality)
(READ PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF INDICTMENT)
The
defendant(s) is (are) accused of violating a section of our State statutes that
reads as follows:
A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he. . . .
(a)ttempts to cause significant bodily injury to another or causes significant
bodily injury purposely or knowingly or, under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to the value of human life recklessly causes such
significant bodily injury.
Under
this statute, the defendant(s) can be found guilty if he/she/they) EITHER
caused significant bodily injury to another OR attempted to cause
significant bodily injury to another.
To find
the defendant(s) guilty of aggravated assault for causing significant bodily
injury to another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the
following elements:
1.
That the defendant(s) caused
significant bodily injury to another; and
2.
That the defendant(s) acted
purposely or knowingly or acted recklessly 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(s) caused significant bodily injury to another.
Significant
bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a temporary loss of the
function of any bodily member or organ or temporary loss of any one of the five
senses. As you know, the five senses are sight, hearing, taste, touch and
smell.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant(s) acted purposely or knowingly or acted recklessly under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
A
person acts purposely with respect to the result of his/her conduct if it
is his/her conscious
object to cause such a result. A person acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or
purpose, or if he/she means to do what he/she does (e.g., “I did it on purpose”).
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.
A person
acts recklessly with respect to the result of his/her conduct if he/she
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result
will occur 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 actors’ situation. One
is said to act recklessly if one acts with recklessness, with scorn for the
consequences, heedlessly, fool-hardily.
The
phrase “under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life” does not focus on the state of mind of the actor, but rather on the
circumstances under which you find that he/she acted. If, in light of all the evidence, you find that the conduct of
the defendant(s) resulted in a probability as opposed to a mere possibility of
significant bodily injury, then you may find that (he/she/they) acted under
circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life.[2]
In
determining whether the defendant(s) acted purposely or knowingly or acted
recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life, you may consider the nature of the act(s) itself (themselves) and
the severity of the resulting injury (injuries).
(NOTE:
When the actual victim is one other than the intended victim, the jury should
be instructed that it is immaterial that the actual victim was not the intended
victim).
If
you find that the State has proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt, then
you must find the defendant(s) guilty. All jurors do not have to agree
unanimously concerning which form of significant bodily injury aggravated
assault is present so long as all believe that it was one form of significant
bodily injury or the other. However, for a defendant to be guilty of
significant bodily injury aggravated assault, all jurors must agree that the
defendant either knowingly or purposely or recklessly under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life caused significant
bodily injury to (insert victim’s name).
If
you find that the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant(s) not guilty of the charge of
aggravated assault in that (he/she/they) caused significant bodily injury to
another.
As I
previously instructed you, the defendant(s) can be found guilty if (he/she/they)
EITHER caused significant bodily injury to another OR attempted
to cause significant bodily injury to another.
To find
the defendant(s) guilty of attempting to cause significant bodily injury to
another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant(s)
purposely[3]
attempted to cause significant bodily injury to another. If you find beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant(s) attempted to cause significant bodily
injury, it does not matter whether such injury actually resulted.
The law
provides that a person is guilty of attempt if, acting purposefully, he/she:
(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 significant bodily injury to another without further conduct
on his/her part. This means that the defendant(s) did something designed to
cause significant 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/her 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]
Significant
bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a temporary loss of the function
of any bodily member or organ or temporary loss of any one of the five senses.
As you know, the five senses are sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.
A person
acts purposely with respect to the result of his/her conduct if it is his/her conscious object to cause such a result. A person acts
purposely if he/she
acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose,
or if he/she
means to do what he/she
does (e.g., “I did it on purpose”).
If
you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant(s) attempted to cause significant bodily injury to another, then you
must find the defendant(s) guilty.[5]
If
you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant(s) attempted to cause significant bodily injury to another, then you
must find the defendant(s) not guilty.[6]
[2] In
State v. Curtis, 195 N.J.Super. 354, 364-65 (App. Div. 1984), certif.
den., 99 N.J. 212 (1984), the Court found, in the context of
aggravated manslaughter, that the difference between recklessness under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life and mere
recklessness is the difference between the probability as opposed to the
possibility that a certain result will occur.
The Supreme Court endorsed Curtis in State v. Breakiron,
108 N.J. 591, 605 (1987). The
case law has applied the Curtis probability standard to the aggravated-assault
statute. State v. Scher, 278 N.J.
Super. 249, 272 (App. Div. 1994), certif. den., 140 N.J. 276
(1995); State v. Oriole, 243 N.J. Super. 688, 693 (Law Div.
1990). Please note that in the
aggravated-assault statute the Legislature has used the term “extreme
indifference to the value of human life,” while the aggravated-manslaughter
statute speaks in terms of “extreme indifference to human life.” Therefore, the indifference referred to in
the aggravated-assault statute would appear not to relate to whether the victim
lives or dies but rather to the value of the victim’s life.
[3] When a person actually causes
significant bodily injury, it does not matter whether his mental state is
purposeful, knowing or reckless (under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life).
When, however, the person attempts to cause, but does not cause,
significant bodily injury, he must act purposefully. Cf. State v. McAllister, 211 N.J.
Super. 355, 362 (App. Div. 1986).
[4] State
v. Fornino, 223 N.J. Super. 531, 538 (App. Div. 1988), certif.
den., 111 N.J. 570 (1988), cert. den. 488 U.S. 859,
109 S.Ct. 152, 102 L.Ed. 2d 123 (1988).
[6] In
third degree aggravated assault cases involving the use of a deadly weapon, it
may be appropriate to instruct the jury on the following lesser offenses:
fourth degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(3); and simple
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1) and (2). Cf. State v. Villar, 292 N.J.
Super. 320, 326-30 (App. Div. 1996), rev’d. o.g., 150 N.J.
503, 517 n. 4 (1997). See also, State v. Sloane, 111 N.J.
293, 301 (1988). These may be charged as lesser offenses even though fourth
degree aggravated assault and a(2) disorderly persons simple assault contain an
element (a deadly weapon) that is not an element of third degree aggravated
assault. Cf. State v. Villar, supra; State v. Sloane, supra.
When these lesser offenses are to be charged, the trial court and counsel
should construct a sequence of the lesser offenses to be charged. State v.
Villar, 150 N.J. at 517 n. 4.