AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER
(N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a) model
jury charge
The defendant is charged by indictment with the crime
of aggravated manslaughter, and the indictment alleges he/she caused (insert
victim's name) death on (Date) .
A
person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter if he/she recklessly causes the
death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
human life.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of
aggravated manslaughter, the State is required to prove each of the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name)
death, and
(2) that the defendant did so recklessly, and
(3) that the defendant did so under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
One element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted recklessly.
A person who causes another's death does so recklessly
when he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct. The risk must
be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of
defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to defendant, his/her disregard
of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would follow in the same situation.1
In other words, you must find that defendant was aware
of and consciously disregarded the risk of causing death. If you find that
defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk of causing death, you must
determine whether the risk that he/she disregarded was substantial and
1 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(3). AGGRAVATED
MANSLAUGHTER (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a) Page 2 of 4
unjustifiable. In
doing so, you must consider the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and
the circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light
of those factors, defendant's disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from
the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in defendant's situation.2
2 This expanded explanation of
recklessness is adapted from the following portion of the Code Commentary:
The Code requires, however, that the risk thus
consciously disregarded by the actor be substantial and unjustifiable; even
substantial risks may be created without recklessness when the actor seeks to
serve a proper purpose. Accordingly, to aid the ultimate determination, the
Code points expressly to the factors to be weighed in judgment: the nature and
degree of the risk disregarded by the actor, the nature and purpose of his
conduct and the circumstances known to him in acting.
Some principle must be articulated, however, to
indicate what final judgment is demanded after everything is weighed. There is
no way to state this value judgment that does not beg the question in the last
analysis. The point is that the jury must evaluate the conduct and determine
whether it should be condemned. The Code, therefore, proposes that this
difficulty be resolved by asking the jury whether the defendant's conduct
involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe. This seems to us to be the most appropriate way to put
the issue to a jury. (2 Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision
Commission, Commentary (1971) at 42.)
3 In State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373,
380-81 (1988), the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction of
reckless manslaughter because the trial judge had selectively summarized only
one aspect of the critical events and had failed to explain that the jury must
make a preliminary finding resolving contrasting factual accounts of events.
4 In State v.
Curtis, 195 N.J. Super. 354, 364-65 (App. Div. 1984), the court
found that the difference between aggravated and reckless manslaughter is the
degree of risk created by defendant's conduct. If, under all the surrounding
circumstances, the defendant's conduct creates a probability, as opposed to a
"mere possibility" of death, then the circumstances manifest
"extreme indifference to human life" and the offense is aggravated
manslaughter. Id. at 365-65. The Supreme Court endorsed Curtis in
State v. Breakiron, 108 N.J. 591, 605 (1987).
(Summarize, if helpful, all of the evidence
relevant to recklessness, including any contrasting accounts of events by the
defense and the State.)3
Another element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to human life. The phrase "under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to human life" does not focus on
defendant's state of mind, but rather on the circumstances under which you find
he/she acted. If, in light of all the evidence, you find that defendant's
conduct resulted in a probability as opposed to a mere possibility of
death, then you may find that he/she acted under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to human life.4 (On the other hand, if you find that his/her AGGRAVATED
MANSLAUGHTER (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a) Page 3 of 4
5 To be used if
reckless manslaughter is being charged in the case.
6 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(a)(1).
7 State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 377
(1988); N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3c.
8 State v. Martin, 119 N.J. at 33.
conduct resulted in only a possibility of death, then
you must acquit him/her of aggravated manslaughter and consider the crime of
reckless manslaughter, which I will explain to you shortly.)5
The final element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is not
an issue, charge the following:)
You must find that (insert victim's name) would not
have died but for defendant's conduct.6
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is
an issue, charge the
fong:)7 Causation
has a special meaning under the law. To establish cau
prove two elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that but for the defendant's conduct, (insert
victim's name) would not have died. Second, (insert victim's name) death must
have been within the risk of which the defendant was aware. If not, it must
involve the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result of the
defendant's conduct, and must also not be too remote, too accidental in its
occurrence, or too dependent on another's volitional act to have a just bearing
on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of his/her offense. In other
words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert victim's
name) death was not so unexp
be unjust to find the defendant guilty of aggravated
manslaughter.8 [NOTE: in cases where Causation - Removal of Life S
should be instructed as follows: AGGRAVATED
MANSLAUGHTER (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a) Page
4 of 4 from life support and then expired, unless there ntrasting factual
theories of causation, each version should be summarized treme indifference
to human life, then your verdict must be guilty of aggravated ansla d go on to
consider whether the defendant should be convicted of reckless manslaughter).12
9
State v. Pelham, 176 N.J. 448, 455-456 and n. 2 (2003).
10 Pelham, 176 N.J. at
467.
11 State v. Martin, 119 N.J.
at 18.
12 To be used if reckless manslaughter is being
charged in the case.
You have heard testimony that on [date], (insert
victim’s name) was taken off life support and that he/she died at some
point after this was done. Should you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert
victim’s name) died from medical complications that resulted from injuries
caused by defendant’s actions, the removal of life support, in this case
(method of removal), is not an intervening cause that relieves defendant of any
criminal liability for those actions.9 That is, if defendant’s actions set in
motion (insert victim’s name) need for life support, without which death
would result naturally, then the causal link between defendant’s action and the
death of (insert victim’s name) was not broken by an unforeseen,
extraordinary act when (insert victim’s name) was removed
was an intervening volitional act of another. ]10
(Where the defendant and State offer co
for the jury.11)
[CHARGE IN ALL CASES] If after consideration of all the evidence you are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused
(insert victim's name) death under circumstances manifesting ex
mughter. If, however, after consideration of all the
evidence you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
recklessly caused (insert victim's name) death under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to human life, you must find the defendant not guilty of
aggravated manslaughter (an
