CONTEMPT
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29‑9)
The
defendant is charged with committing the crime of contempt.
The Statutes of New Jersey
describe the crime of "contempt" as follows:
A person is guilty of a crime . . . if he purposely or
knowingly disobeys a judicial order or hinders, obstructs or impedes the
effectuation of a judicial order or the exercise of jurisdiction over any
person, thing or controversy by a Court, administrative body or investigative
entity.
In order
for the defendant to be found guilty of contempt, you must find each of the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
[Charge any or all of the following alternatives as
appropriate.]
Alternative 1: (Charge
in the case of disobedience of an order.)
2. That the defendant knew of the
existence of the Order.
3. That the defendant purposely or
knowingly disobeyed the Order.
A
person has disobeyed a judicial order when that person has, with knowledge of
the existence of the order, purposely or knowingly refused or failed to comply
with an order as entered by the Court which applies to him/her. A court order may either be written or
oral. In the case at hand the proofs
indicate that the order which the defendant has been charged with disobeying
was written/oral.
OR
Alternative 2: Charge in the case of
hindering, obstructing or impeding the effectuation of a judicial order.
2. That the defendant knew of the
existence of the Order.
3. The defendant purposely or knowingly
hindered, obstructed or impeded the fulfillment of the judicial order.
OR
Alternative
3: Charge in the case of hindering, obstructing or impeding the
exercise of jurisdiction of a court, administrative body or investigative
entity.
1. There
had been an exercise of jurisdiction or an attempt to exercise jurisdiction by [insert
name of Court, administrative body or investigative entity] over any
person, thing or element in controversy.[3]
2. The
defendant knew of the existence of this exercise of jurisdiction or attempted
exercise of jurisdiction.
3. That
the defendant by his/her conduct hindered, obstructed or impeded, that is, by his/her actions, prevented, deterred, delayed or inhibited by his/her purposeful and knowing actions the exercise of jurisdiction of [insert
name of Court, administrative body or investigative entity].
A person
has hindered, obstructed or impeded the fulfillment of [a judicial order or
the exercise of jurisdiction] by a [court, administrative body or investigative
entity] when he/she
has purposely or knowingly in any way made the accomplishment of the juridical
order or exercise of jurisdiction more difficult. In this situation, it does not matter whether
the order or the exercise of jurisdiction is directed to the Defendant.
[The following will be charged in all instances]
Before
the defendant can be found guilty of contempt, you must decide beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant has purposely or knowingly [disobeyed a
judicial order or hindered a judicial order or exercise of jurisdiction] beyond
a reasonable doubt.
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 he/she 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.
"Knowing," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have
the same meaning.
If
you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant purposely or knowingly
[disobeyed a judicial order or hindered a judicial order or exercise of
jurisdiction], then you must find defendant guilty of contempt. However, if you are not satisfied that the
State has proved each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find the defendant not guilty.
