CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – RESEARCH FACILITY PROPERTY
N.J.S.A.
2C:17-3b(3) model jury charge
Count
of the indictment charges defendant with
committing the offense of criminal mischief by [insert aspect[s] of
offense alleged in 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
damages, defaces, eradicates, alters, receives, releases or causes the loss of
any research property used by a research facility or otherwise causes physical
disruption to the functioning of the research 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.
That (name of location)
is a research facility;
2. That
defendant damaged/defaced/eradicated/altered/received/released/caused the loss
of research property used by (name of research facility);
[OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE]
2. That defendant
caused physical disruption to the functioning of (name of research
facility), and
3. That defendant
acted purposely, knowingly or recklessly when he/she
committed the [damage/defacement-physical disruption.][1]
The first element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that (name of location) is a research
facility. Research facility means any
building, laboratory, institution, organization, school, or person engaged in
research, testing, educational or experimental activities, or any commercial or
academic enterprise that uses warm-blooded or cold-blooded animals for food or
fiber production, agriculture, research, testing, experimentation or education
and includes, but is not limited to, any enclosure, separately secured yard,
pad, pond, vehicle, building, structure or premises or separately secured
portion thereof used for research purposes.[2]
The second element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant damaged/defaced/eradicated/altered/received/released/caused
the loss of research property used by (name of research facility).
[OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE/CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE]
The second element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that defendant caused physical disruption to the
functioning of (name of research facility). Physical disruption means interference,
interruption or destruction of any operation of a research facility but does
not include any lawful activity that results from public, governmental or
research facility employee reaction to the disclosure of information about the
research facility.[3]
The third element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant acted purposely,
knowingly or recklessly when he/she
committed the [damage/defacement - physical disruption]. 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 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.[4] In other words, for you to find that
defendant acted purposely, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
it was his/her
purpose or conscious object to (damage, deface, etc., research property)
used by (name of research facility) [or, in the alternative]
to cause physical disruption to the functioning of (name of research
facility).
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 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.[5] Thus, 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 defendant's conduct would (damage, deface, etc., research
property) used by (name of research facility) [or,
in the alternative] would cause physical disruption to the functioning of (name
of research facility).
A person 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.[6] 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 (damage, deface, etc., research property) used by (name
of research facility) [or, in the alternative] would cause
physical disruption to the functioning of (name of research facility).
You should understand that purpose,
knowledge and recklessness are conditions of the mind. They cannot be seen. They 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 purposely, knowingly or recklessly when he/she
did a particular thing. It is within
your power to find that proof of purpose, knowledge or recklessness has been
furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences 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 every
element of the offense, you must find defendant not guilty. But if you determine that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of criminal mischief as have
been explained to you, you must find defendant guilty of that offense.
[1] N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(3) provides
two ways in which this form of criminal mischief can be committed. It can occur if defendant (1) damages,
defaces, eradicates, alters, receives, releases or causes the loss of any
research property used by a research facility or (2) if defendant otherwise
causes physical disruption of the functioning of a research facility. Both of the above are third degree offenses
irrespective of the amount of the pecuniary loss suffered by the research
facility.