CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION
OR IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.
N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(7) model jury charge
Count
____ of the indictment charges defendant with committing the offense of
criminal mischief by (insert
allegation of 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 causes a substantial interruption or impairment of
public communication/transportation/supply of water, oil, gas or power/or other
public service.
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]
1. That
(name of entity) is a provider
of public communication/transportation/ supply of water, oil, gas or
power/other public service;
2. That
defendant caused a substantial interruption or substantial impairment of public
communication/transportation/supply of water, oil, gas or power/other public
service (specify) provided by (name
of entity).
3. That
defendant acted purposely or knowingly.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (name of entity) is a provider of public
communication/transportation/supply of water, oil, gas or power/other public
service.
The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant caused a substantial
interruption or a substantial impairment of public [communication] [transportation] [supply of water/oil/gas/power]
[other specified public service] provided by (name of entity). The term “substantial” means an ample or
considerable amount.[2] The term “interruption” means action in
opposition or to hamper the operation of something.[3] The term “impairment” means damage or a
worsening of the condition, value, strength or quality of something.[4]
The third element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant purposely or knowingly
caused such substantial interruption or substantial impairment. 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.[5] In other words, for you to find that
defendant acted purposely, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
it was defendant’s purpose or conscious object to cause a substantial
interruption or a substantial impairment of public [communication] [transportation] [supply of
water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service] provided
by (name of entity) when he/she
engaged in the conduct alleged.
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.[6] 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 cause a substantial interference or a substantial impairment of public
[communication] [transportation]
[supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service]
provided by (name of entity)
when he/she
engaged in the conduct alleged.
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 of
criminal mischief, 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 the offense, you must
find defendant guilty of criminal mischief.
[THIS CONCLUDES THE CHARGE IF THE
INDICTMENT ALLEGES ONLY THE THIRD DEGREE FORM OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF UNDER THE
STATUTE. CHARGE AS FOLLOWS IF SUBMITTING
TO THE JURY THE 2ND DEGREE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF RESULTING IN
DEATH AS WELL.][7]
If you have found defendant guilty
of the offense of criminal mischief, you must then continue your deliberations
to consider the more serious offense of criminal mischief causing death. Regarding this offense, you must determine
whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt two additional elements:
4. That
defendant’s interruption or impairment of public [communication] [transportation] [supply of
water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service] caused the
death of (name of deceased);
and
5. That
defendant acted recklessly in causing this death.
Regarding the fourth element, the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the death of (name of deceased) and that (name’s) death was caused by the interruption or impairment
of public [communication] [transportation]
[supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service] that
resulted from defendant’s conduct.
The fifth element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant acted recklessly in causing
this death. A defendant acts recklessly
when he/she
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. A conscious disregard requires that defendant
actually be aware of the risk, but that he/she ignores it anyway. 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 him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of
conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation.[8] In other words, for you to find that
defendant acted recklessly, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant was aware of and disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that his/her
conduct would cause the death of another person.
If you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any element of criminal mischief causing
death, you must find defendant not guilty of that offense. If, however, you find that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense, you must find
defendant guilty of criminal mischief causing death.
[1] The
form of the offense defined here is a third degree crime. The second degree version of the offense
contains additional elements and is considered within.
[7] If a verdict sheet is to be submitted to the
jury in connection with criminal mischief/criminal mischief causing death
charges, that verdict sheet must clearly indicate that the criminal mischief
causing death charge is to be considered if, and only if, the jury is first
satisfied that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the first three
elements of criminal mischief under N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(b)(7). If the State has failed to prove the
underlying charge, the jury must find defendant not guilty of criminal mischief
and is not to consider the criminal mischief causing death charge.
[8] If causing death had been defendant’s purpose
or intention when causing substantial interruption or impairment of public
communication/transportation/etc., defendant would also be exposed to
prosecution under homicide statutes.
Reckless conduct which causes death is also prosecutable as a homicide
(manslaughter). See N.J.S.A.
2C:11-3 and 4.