AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - UPON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
(ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE OR PURPOSELY, KNOWINGLY OR
RECKLESSLY CAUSING BODILY INJURY)
Count of this
indictment charges the defendant with aggravated assault.
(Read appropriate count of indictment)
The defendant is accused of violating a law that provides
in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of aggravated
assault if he . . . (a)ttempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly
causes bodily injury to . . . (a)ny law enforcement officer acting in the performance
of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority or
because of his status as a law enforcement officer.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the
State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant purposely attempted
to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury (insert
name of victim);
2.
that (insert
name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer; and
3a. that the defendant knew that (insert
name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer[2] acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or
while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority;[3] or
3b. that the defendant knew that (insert
name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer[4] and purposely committed the act against (him/her)
because of (his/her) status as a law-enforcement officer.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant purposely attempted to cause
or purposely, knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury to (insert name
of victim).
(If appropriate, use the model charge on Attempt).
A
person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is a person's conscious object to
engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. 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.[6]
A
person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances 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 such a result. One is said to act knowingly if one
acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if he/she comprehends his/her acts.[7]
A
person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense, such as
the infliction of serious bodily injury, if he/she 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 or in a foolhardy manner.[8]
Purpose, knowledge and recklessness are conditions of the
mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences
from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a
witness to testify that the defendant stated that he/she acted with a particular state of mind. It is within your power
to find that proof of purpose, knowledge or recklessness has been furnished
beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences that may arise from the nature of the
acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct in question.
For
you to find that the defendant caused bodily injury to (insert name of
victim), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) would
not have been injured but for the defendant’s conduct.[9]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (insert
name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer.
A
law-enforcement officer is any person who is employed as a permanent full-time
member of any State, county or municipal law-enforcement agency, department or
division of those governments and who is statutorily empowered to act for the
detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention or rehabilitation of
persons violating the criminal laws of this state.[10]
The third element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is:
a. that the defendant knew that (insert name
of victim) was a law-enforcement officer acting in the performance of
(his/her) duties or while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her)
authority; or
b. that the defendant knew that (insert name
of victim) was a law-enforcement officer and purposely committed the act
against (him/her) because of (his/her) status as a law-enforcement officer.
Earlier, I defined for you the relevant states of mind
and those definitions apply with equal force to this element.
If you find that the State has proven every element
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If,
however, the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you must find him/her
not guilty.
[1] This
charge is drafted for the most common situation, where a defendant is charged
with aggravated assault upon a law enforcement officer under N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(5)(a). Other sections of the statute apply, with differing language,
to aggravated assault upon paid and volunteer firemen; emergency first-aid and
medical personnel; school board members, school administrators, teachers and
other employees of a school board; employees of the Division of Youth and
Family Services; the judiciary; and bus drivers and railroad employees. N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(5)(b) to (g). As always, the Model Charge must be adapted to fit the
facts of each case.
[2] State
v. Green, 318 N.J. Super. 361, 376 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d o.b.,
163 N.J. 140 (2000) (the defendant must know that the victim is a
law-enforcement officer).
[3] If
transferred intent is an issue, the charge should be modified accordingly. State
in the Interest of S.B., 333 N.J. Super. 236, 243 (App. Div. 2000).
[9] N.J.S.A.
2C:2-3a(1). If causation is contested, a fuller explanation of causation may be
needed. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3.