COMPOUNDING (N.J.S.A. 2C:29‑4) model jury charge
(Read appropriate Count of Indictment)
The pertinent part of the statute on which this
indictment is based reads as follows:
(Select appropriate part of statute)
(ACCEPTS)
A person commits a crime if he
accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit in consideration of
refraining from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission or
suspected commission of any offense or information relating to an offense or
from seeking prosecution of an offense.
or (CONFERS)
A person commits a crime if he
confers or agrees to confer any pecuniary benefit in consideration of the other
person agreeing to refrain from any such reporting or seeking prosecution.
In order to convict the defendant of the criminal offense
of compounding a crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of
the following elements:
(ACCEPTS)
1.
That the defendant accepted
or agreed to accept any pecuniary benefit;
2. That
in so accepting or agreeing, the defendant agreed not to report to law
enforcement authorities the commission or suspected commission of any offense
or information relating to an offense (or) not to seek prosecution of an
offense;
3. That
the defendant acted purposely (2C:2‑2(c)(3))
(CONFERS)
1. That the defendant conferred or agreed
to confer any pecuniary benefit upon another;
2. That
in so conferring or agreeing to confer, the defendant agreed that someone else
would refrain from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission or
suspected commission of any offense or information relating to an offense (or)
from seeking prosecution of an offense;
3. That the defendant acted purposely.
"Pecuniary benefit" is benefit in the form of
money, property, commercial interests or anything else, the primary
significance of which is economic gain to defendant or to any other person or
entity in whose welfare he/she
is interested.
(If the defense of restitution or
indemnification as set forth in 2C:29‑4 is raised, insert the following:)
The statute also provides that:
It is an affirmative defense
to prosecution under this section that the pecuniary benefit did not exceed an
amount which the actor reasonably believed to be due as restitution or
indemnification for harm caused by the offense.
(ACCEPTS)
The
law provides that the defendant's acceptance or agreement to accept restitution
or indemnification is a defense to the charge of compounding. The law does not seek to penalize the victim
of an offense who refrains from reporting that offense because (he/she)
accepted or agreed to accept restitution or indemnification from the
perpetrator. However, to constitute a
defense, the pecuniary benefit which he/she accepted or agreed to accept must not have exceeded an amount which
the defendant reasonably believed to be due to him/her as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the offense.
The
defendant, as part of his/her denial or guilt, raises the defense that the pecuniary benefit he/she accepted or agreed to accept did not exceed an amount which he/she reasonably believed to be due to him/her as
restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the offense. This defense is a complete defense to the
crime charged. If you conclude that the
State has proved the crime of compounding beyond a reasonable doubt and only if
you so conclude, then you must consider the defense that the pecuniary benefit
accepted by the defendant, or which he/she agreed to accept, did not exceed an amount which the defendant reasonably believed to be due to him/her as
restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the offense. The law places upon the State the burden of
disproving the truth of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved the
crime of compounding beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have a reasonable doubt
as to whether or not the defense of restitution or indemnification is true,
then you must find the defendant not guilty of compounding. If you conclude that the State has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant committed the crime of
compounding and also that the defense of restitution or indemnification is
untrue, then you must find the defendant guilty of compounding.
(CONFERS)
The
law provides that the defendant's conferring or agreeing to confer restitution
or indemnification is a defense to the charge of compounding. However, to constitute a defense the
pecuniary benefit which he/she conferred or agreed to confer must not have exceeded an amount which
the defendant reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or
indemnification for harm caused by the offense.
The
defendant as part of his/her denial of
guilt raises the defense that the pecuniary benefit he/she conferred or agreed to confer upon the victim did not exceed an amount
which he/she reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or
indemnification for harm caused by the offense.
This defense is a complete defense to the crime charged. If you conclude that the State has proved the
crime of compounding beyond a reasonable doubt and only if you so conclude,
then you must consider the defense that the pecuniary benefit conferred by the
defendant, or which he/she agreed to confer, did not exceed an amount which the defendant
reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or indemnification
for harm caused by the offense. The law
then places upon the State the burden of disproving the truth of this defense
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved the
crime of compounding beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have a reasonable doubt
as to whether or not the defense of restitution or indemnification is true,
then you must find the defendant not guilty of compounding. If you conclude that the State has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant committed the crime of
compounding and also that the defense of restitution or indemnification is
untrue, then you must find the defendant guilty of compounding.
If you find that the State has proved all of the
foregoing elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you
should find the defendant guilty of compounding in the second degree, unless
the thing of value (accepted or agreed to be accepted) (conferred or agreed to
be conferred) is any benefit of $200.00 or less, in which case you should find
the defendant guilty of compounding in the third degree. If the State has failed to prove any of the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant
not guilty.