CRIMINAL MISCHIEF
– INTERFERES OR TAMPERS WITH AIRPORT, ETC.
(N.J.S.A.
2C:17-3b(5)) model jury charge
(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
interferes or tampers with any airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport,
helistop or any other aviation facility.
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 affected location) is an airport/landing field/landing
strip/heliport/ helistop or other aviation facility;
2. That
defendant tampered or interfered with (name of affected location);
and
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (name of affected location)
is an airport/landing field/landing strip/heliport/helistop or other aviation
facility.
The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant interfered or tampered
with (name of affected location).
To interfere means to act in opposition or to hamper the operation of
something.[3] To tamper with means to interfere with
another person's property, regardless of whether the property interfered with
is actually damaged.
The third element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant acted knowingly. 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]
You should understand that 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 knowledge when he/she
did a particular thing. It is within
your power to find that proof of 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. Thus,
for you to find that the 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 interfere or tamper with (name of airport, etc.).
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.
[CHARGE AS FOLLOWS IF SUBMITTING ONLY 4TH
DEGREE OFFENSE TO JURY]
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.
[CHARGE
AS FOLLOWS IF SUBMITTING TO JURY THE 3RD DEGREE OFFENSE OF AIRPORT
INTERFERENCE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF WITH BODILY INJURY/DAMAGE TO PROPERTYAS WELL AS
THE 4TH DEGREE OFFENSE]
If you find that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt all three of the elements of criminal mischief
that I have defined for you, you must then go on in your deliberations to consider
two additional elements: You must
determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
4. That
defendant's interference or tampering with (name of airport, etc.)
caused bodily injury to another person. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or
any impairment of physical condition.[5]
OR
4. That
defendant's interference or tampering with (name of airport, etc.)
caused damage to property. Any damage to
property, no matter how nominal, satisfies this element of the statute; and
5. That
defendant acted recklessly with respect to the infliction of this bodily
injury/damage to property.[6]
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.[7] 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 bodily injury/damage to property.
If you find that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt all five of the elements of criminal mischief
with bodily injury/damage to property, you must find defendant guilty of that
offense. If, however, you find that the
State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either element four (bodily
injury/damage to property) or element five (recklessness) but that the State
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the first three elements of the offense,
you must find defendant not guilty of criminal mischief with bodily
injury/damage to property but must find defendant guilty of criminal mischief. Finally, if you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the first three elements that
were explained to you, you must find defendant not guilty of any form of
criminal mischief.
[CHARGE
AS FOLLOWS IF SUBMITTING TO JURY 2ND DEGREE OFFENSE
OF
AIRPORT INTERFERENCE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF CAUSING A
DEATH
AS WELL AS THE 4TH DEGREE OFFENSE]
If you
find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all three of the
elements of criminal mischief that I have defined for you, you must then go on
in your deliberations to consider two additional elements. You must determine whether the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
4. That
defendant's interference or tampering with (name of airport, etc.)
caused the death of (name of deceased); and
5. That defendant acted recklessly with respect
to 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
proved beyond a reasonable doubt all five of the elements of criminal mischief
causing a death, you must find defendant guilty of that offense. If, however, you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either element four (death of another
person) or element five (recklessness) but that the State has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt the first three elements of the offense, you must find
defendant not guilty of criminal mischief causing a death but must find
defendant guilty of criminal mischief.
Finally, if you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the first three elements that were explained to you,
you must find defendant not guilty of any form of criminal mischief.
[1] The form of the offense defined here
is a fourth degree crime. Second and
third degree versions of the offense contain additional elements and are
considered within.
[2] N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(5) does not
set forth any culpability standard for the offense. The statute should therefore be construed to
require proof that defendant acted knowingly.
See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2c(3).
[6] If the infliction of bodily injury had
been defendant's purpose or intention when interfering/tampering with the airport,
defendant would also be exposed to prosecution under assault statutes. Reckless conduct which causes bodily injury
is also prosecutable as an assault. See
N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1).
[8] If causing death had been defendant's
purpose or intention when
interfering/tampering with the airport, 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.