CAUSING OR RISKING
WIDESPREAD INJURY OR DAMAGE
(EXPLOSION, FLOOD ETC.)
N.J.S.A. 2C:17-2(a)(1) model jury charge
Count of the indictment charges the defendant with
causing widespread injury or damage in violation of a statute which provides as
follows:
A person who, purposely
or knowingly, causes an explosion, flood, avalanche, collapse of a building,
release or abandonment of poisonous gas, radioactive material or any other
harmful or destructive substance commits a crime. . .
In order for the defendant to be found guilty of causing
widespread injury or damage, the State must prove the following elements beyond
a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant unlawfully caused[1]
[an explosion] [a flood] [an avalanche] [the
collapse
of a building] [the release or abandonment of poisonous gas] [the release or
abandonment of radioactive material] [the release or abandonment of ][2];
and
(2) that the defendant acted purposely or
knowingly.[3]
The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt is that defendant unlawfully caused [an explosion] [a flood] [an
avalanche] [the collapse of a building] [the release or abandonment of
poisonous gas] [the release or abandonment of radioactive material] [the
release or abandonment of ].
The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt is that the defendant acted purposely or knowingly. A person acts purposely with respect to the
nature of his/her
conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her
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 he/she is aware of the existence of such
circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design,” or
equivalent terms have the same meaning.
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 he/she is
aware of a high probability of their existence.
A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her
conduct if he/she is
aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause such a result.
Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind that cannot
be seen and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendant's
conduct, words or acts. It is not
necessary for the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by direct
evidence such as a statement by the defendant that he/she had a
particular purpose or knowledge. It is
within the power of the jury to find that the proof of purpose or knowledge has
been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from
the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the
defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen
in this case.
If the State has failed to prove any one or more of the
elements as I have described them to you beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find the defendant not guilty of causing widespread injury or damage. If the State has proven each element beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of causing or
risking widespread injury or damage.
[RECKLESSLY CAUSING
WIDESPREAD
INJURY OR DAMAGE - USE
IF APPLICABLE]
If you find the defendant not guilty of purposely or
knowingly causing widespread injury or damage, you must consider whether or not
the State has proven him/her guilty of recklessly causing widespread
injury or damage.
In order for the defendant to be found guilty of recklessly
causing widespread injury or damage, the State must prove the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the
defendant unlawfully caused[4]
[an explosion] [a flood] [an avalanche] [the collapse of a building] [the
release or abandonment of poison gas] [the release or abandonment of
radioactive material] [the release or abandonment of ][5];
and
(2) that the defendant acted recklessly.
The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt is that defendant unlawfully caused [an explosion] [a flood] [an
avalanche] [the collapse of a building] [the release or abandonment of
poisonous gas] [the release or abandonment of radioactive material] [the
release or abandonment of ].
The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt is that the defendant acted recklessly.
A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her
conduct or a result thereof when he/she
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. 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 him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation
from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the
actor’s situation.[6]
Recklessness is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen
and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendant's conduct,
words or acts. It is not necessary for
the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such
as a statement by the defendant that he/she acted
or was acting recklessly. It is within
the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished
beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of
the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they
have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
If the State has failed to prove any one or more of the
elements as I have described them to you beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find the defendant not guilty of recklessly causing widespread injury or
damage. If the State has proven each
element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of the
crime of recklessly causing widespread injury or damage.
[3] To convict of this crime, the jurors need not be unanimous
in their findings that the described conduct was committed either “purposely”
or “knowingly.” Some jurors could find
the conduct to have been purposeful, while others found it to be knowing, and
the conviction would still be valid.
