HINDERING ONE’S OWN APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION
(N.J.S.A. 2C:29‑3b)
This
charge is based upon a statute which provides that:
A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder
his own detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or
punishment for [an offense] OR [a violation of Title 39 of the New
Jersey Statutes] OR [a violation of Chapter 33A of Title 17 of the
Revised Statutes] he [refer to appropriate portion of N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3b(1) thru (4)].
For
you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Those elements are:
(2) that the defendant (read appropriate subsection of N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3b(1) to (4)); and
(3) that the defendant acted with purpose to hinder his/her own detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction,
or punishment.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant must have known that he/she could/might be charged or was liable
to be charged with (offense).[1]
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.[2]
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind. It cannot be
seen. It can only be determined by
inference from defendant’s conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of
direct proof but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State
produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain
state of mind when he/she did a
particular thing. It is within your
power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inference which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and
conduct and from all he/she said and did
at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances
established by the evidence.
The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that on (date), the defendant:
(1) (suppressed,
by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime) OR
(tampered with a document [or other source of information]), which (evidence,
document, etc.) might aid in his/her
discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against him/her.
OR
(2) prevented or obstructed, by means of force or intimidation
(name of person) from performing an act which might aid in his/her
discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge against him/her.
OR
(3) prevented
or obstructed, by means of force, intimidation or deception (name of witness or
informant) from providing testimony or information which might aid in his/her discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge
against him/her.
OR
(4) gave[3] false
information to
(A) a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer is a person whose
public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection,
apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of this
State.[4]
OR
(B) a civil State Investigator assigned to
the Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted with the purpose of hindering his/her detention, apprehension, investigation,
prosecution, conviction or punishment for (offense).
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.
Someone acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a purpose,
with a particular objective in mind, if he/she really means to do what he/she does. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design,” or
equivalent terms have the same meaning.[5]
Purpose
and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be
determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of
direct proof, but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary, members of the
jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she engaged in a particular act. It
is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a
reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the
surrounding circumstances.
If
after considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has proven each
of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.
On the other hand, if you find that the
State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then
you must find the defendant not guilty.
[1] Unlike
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5 (tampering), this statute does not require that
defendant know or believe either that a charge has been made or is likely to be
made; instead, it is addressed at “the wrongful avoidance of an official action by attempting to prevent a witness
from reporting a crime to the police.” State v. D.A., 191 N.J.
158, 170 (2007) (emphasis added). Note
that the degree of this crime depends upon whether the offense that the
defendant had been or was likely to be charged with would have constituted a
crime of the second degree or greater, a crime of the third degree, or a crime
of the fourth degree or less. Any issue
regarding what degree of crime defendant knew that (he/she) had been or would
likely be charged with must be submitted to the jury, along with definitions of
the elements of the crimes or offenses that the issue of knowledge entails.
[3] Prior
to the enactment of P.L. 1999, c. 297 (December 23, 1999), this
subsection read “volunteered false information . . . ,” which was read to mean
taking the initiative in furnishing false information, rather than simply
providing such information in response to questioning. State v. Valentin,
105 N.J. 14 (1987).
