CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – BREAKING OR DIGGING UP
GAS PIPES OR MAINS, ETC.
N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(8) model jury charge
Count
____ of the indictment charges defendant with committing the offense of
criminal mischief by (insert allegation of the indictment). In pertinent part, the indictment alleges
that
(Read material part of Count ____ to jury)
Defendant
is charged with violating a provision of our law that provides that a person is
guilty of criminal mischief if he/she purposely or knowingly breaks, digs up, obstructs or otherwise
tampers with any pipes or mains for conducting gas, oil or water, or any works
erected for supplying buildings with gas, oil or water, or any
appurtenances or appendages therewith
connected, or injures, cuts, breaks down, destroys or otherwise tampers with
any electric light wires, poles or appurtenances, or any telephone,
telecommunications, cable television or telegraph wires, lines, cables or
appurtenances.
In order to convict defendant of
this offense, you must find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt
each of the following three elements:
1. That
(name/description of damaged property)
is:
[CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE]
a. a pipe or main for conducting gas, oil or water;
b. works erected for supplying gas, oil or water to any building or
any appurtenance
or appendage therewith connected;
c. electric light wires, poles or appurtenances; or
d. telephone, telecommunications, cable television or telegraph
wires, lines,
cables or appurtenances.
2. That
defendant:
[CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE]
a. broke/dug up/obstructed/or otherwise tampered
with:
i. a pipe or main for conducting gas, oil or
water,
or
ii.
works erected for supplying buildings with gas, oil or water [or
any
appurtenance or appendage therewith connected].
OR
b. injured/cut/broke down/destroyed/or otherwise tampered with:
i. an electric light wire/pole/appurtenance,
or
ii. a
telephone/telecommunication/cable television/telegraph wire/ line/cable/appurtenance.
3. That
defendant acted purposely or knowingly.
The first element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (name/description
of property damaged) is a [pipe
or main for conducting gas, oil or water] [works erected for supplying
buildings with gas, oil or water or any appurtenance or appendage therewith connected]
OR is [an electric light wire/
pole/appurtenance] [a telephone/telecommunication/cable
television/telegraph wire/ line/cable/appurtenance]. The term appurtenance means something that belongs
or is annexed to a more substantial structure (e.g., a porch attached to
a house).[1] The term appendage means an accessory or
subordinate part of something else (e.g., the arm on a body).[2]
The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant [CHARGE AS APPROPRIATE]:
a. broke/dug
up/obstructed/otherwise tampered with (insert
name/description of property damaged).
OR
b. injured/cut/broke
down/destroyed/otherwise tampered with (insert
name/ description of property damaged).
The third element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant acted purposely or
knowingly when he engaged in such conduct.
A defendant 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 defendant 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.[3] In other words, for you to find that
defendant acted purposely, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant’s purpose or conscious object was to:
[CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE]
(1)
break/dig up/obstruct/otherwise tamper with:
a. a pipe or main for conducting gas/oil/water
or
b. works erected for supplying buildings with
gas/oil/water or any appurtenance/appendage
therewith connected.
OR
(2) injure/cut/break
down/destroy/otherwise tamper with:
a. an electric light wire/pole/appurtenance
or
b. a telephone/telecommunications/cable television/telegraph wire/
line/
cable appurtenance,
A defendant 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 defendant acts knowingly with respect to a
result of his/her
conduct if defendant is aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause such a result.[4] In other words, for you to find that
defendant acted knowingly, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant knew what he/she was doing, and that defendant was aware that the nature of his/her
conduct and the attendant circumstances were such as to make it practically
certain that his/her
conduct would:
[CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE]
(1) break/dig
up/obstruct/otherwise tamper with:
a. a pipe or main for conducting gas/oil/water
or
b. works erected for supplying buildings with gas/oil/water
or any
appurtenance/appendage
therewith connected.
OR
(2)
injure/cut/break down/destroy/otherwise tamper with
a. an
electric light wire/pole/appurtenance
or
b. a
telephone/telecommunications/cable television/telegraph wire/line/
cable appurtenance,
You should understand that purpose
or knowledge is a condition of the mind.
It cannot be seen. It can only be
determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. Therefore, it is not necessary for the State
to produce witnesses to testify that defendant stated, for example, that he/she acted with purpose or knowledge when he/she did a particular thing.
It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has
been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the
nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances. The place where the acts occurred and all
that was done or said by defendant preceding, connected with, and immediately
succeeding the events in question are among the circumstances to be considered.
If you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any element of the offense, you must
find defendant not guilty. On the other
hand, if you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every
element of criminal mischief, you must find defendant guilty of that offense.