INTERFERENCE WITH
TRANSPORTATION
(N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14)
Count _________ of the indictment
provides as follows:
[READ COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT]
This count charges the defendant with
Interference with Transportation in violation of a statute which provides as follows:
A person is guilty of interference with
transportation if the person purposely or knowingly:
[CHOOSE
APPROPRIATE]
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(1)][1]
casts, shoots or throws anything at,
against or into any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail
vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad
car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.
OR
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(2)]
casts, shoots, throws or otherwise places
any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any street railway track,
trolley track or railroad track.
OR
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(3)]
endangers or obstructs the safe operation
of motor vehicles by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise placing any
stick, stone, object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.
OR
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(4)]
unlawfully climbs into or upon any light
rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad car, either in motion or standing
on the track of any railroad company in this State.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(5)]
unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents
the operation of any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail
vehicle, railroad locomotive, train . . . jitney, trolley, subway, airplane or
any other facility of transportation.
OR
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(6)]
endangers or obstructs the safe operation
of motor vehicles by using a traffic control preemption device to interfere
with or impair the operation of a traffic control signal as defined under the
law.[2]
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(7)]
shines, points, or focuses a laser
lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a person operating any
vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad
locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane or
other facility of transportation.
In order for the
defendant to be found guilty of interfering with transportation, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant
[CHOOSE APPROPRIATE]
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(1)]
(1) cast, shot or threw anything at, against or into any vehicle, including,
but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad
car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry,
airplane or other facility of transportation.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(2)]
(1) cast, shot, threw or otherwise placed any
stick, stone, object or other substance upon any street railway track, trolley
track or railroad track.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(3)]
(1) endangered or obstructed the safe operation
of motor vehicles
(2) by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise
placing any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(4)]
(1) unlawfully climbed into or upon any light
rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad car, either in motion or standing
on the track of any railroad company in this State.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(5)]
(1) unlawfully disrupted, delayed or prevented
the operation of any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail
vehicle, railroad locomotive, train, bus, jitney, trolley, subway, airplane or
any other facility of transportation.
[The term
"unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents the operation of" does not
include non-violent conduct growing out of a labor dispute].[3]
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(6)]
(1) endangered or obstructed the safe operation
of motor vehicles
(2) by using a traffic control preemption device
to interfere with or impair the operation of a traffic control signal as
defined under the law.[4]
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(7)]
(1) shined,
pointed or focused a laser lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a
person operating any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail
vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car,
ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.
AND
(2) or (3) that
the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly].
[CHOOSE
APPROPRIATE]
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(1)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant did cast,
shoot or throw anything at, against or into any vehicle, including, but not
limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car,
jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane, or other facility of
transportation.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(2)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant did cast,
shoot, throw or otherwise place any stick, stone, object or other substance
upon any street railway track, trolley track or railroad track.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(3)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant endangered
or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles.
The second
element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that he/she endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor
vehicles by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise placing any stick, stone,
object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(4)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant unlawfully
climbed into or upon any light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad
car, either in motion or standing on the track of any railroad company in this State.
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(5)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant unlawfully
disrupted, delayed or prevented the operation of any vehicle, including, but
not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, train . . .
jitney, trolley, subway, airplane, or any other facility of transportation.
[The term
“unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents the operation of” does not include
non-violent conduct growing out of a labor dispute.[5] If this issue is raised, the burden is upon
the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.]
OR
[N.J.S.A.
2C:33-14a(6)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant endangered
or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles.
The second
element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant
endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles by using a
traffic control preemption device to interfere with or impair the operation of
a traffic control signal.
"Traffic
control preemption device" means an infrared transmitter or other device
which transmits an infrared beam, radio wave or other signal designed to
change, alter, or disrupt in any manner the normal operation of a traffic
control signal.[6]
"Traffic
control signal" means a device, whether manually, electrically,
mechanically, or otherwise controlled, by which traffic is alternately directed
to stop and to proceed.[7]
OR
[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(7)]
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant shined,
pointed or focused a laser lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a
person operating any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail
vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car,
ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.
“Laser lighting
device” means a device which emits a laser beam that is designed to be used by
the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark or identify a
specific position, place, item or object.[8]
[READ IN ALL
CASES]
The [second]
[third] element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly].
[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 believes or hopes that they exist. "With purpose,"
"designed," "with design," or equivalent terms have the
same meaning.]
[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].
[Purpose]
[knowledge] is/are condition(s) of the mind that cannot be seen and can only be
determined by inferences drawn from the defendant's conduct, words or acts and
all the surrounding circumstances. It
is not necessary for the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by
direct evidence such as a statement by the defendant that he/she
had a particular [purpose] [knowledge].
It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of [purpose]
[knowledge] has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which
you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the
conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have
heard and seen in this case.
[All jurors do
not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted purposely or
knowingly, so long as all agree that he/she had one or the other state of mind.]
If the State has
failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find
the defendant not guilty of interference with transportation. If the State has proven every element beyond
a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of interference with
transportation.
GRADING
[CHOOSE
APPROPRIATE]
[SECOND
DEGREE][9]
If you find that
the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this
offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused
serious bodily injury to another person.
I have already defined
["purposely"]["knowingly"] for you.
[CHARGE IF
APPROPRIATE]
To this point in
the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant
acted recklessly. There is good reason
for that. The issue of recklessness is
only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with
Transportation. A defendant is guilty
of this offense only if he/she acted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind. You may consider whether the defendant acted
recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the
defendant has been convicted.
A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof
when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’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 actor’s situation.[10]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences
drawn from one's conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding
circumstances. It therefore is not
necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said
he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
[CHARGE IN ALL
CASES]
"Serious
bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of
death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.[11] "Bodily injury" means physical
pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[12]
[All jurors do
not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted [purposely]
[knowingly] [recklessly], so long as all agree that he/she had one or the other state of mind.]
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [purposely]
[knowingly] [recklessly] caused serious bodily injury to another person, then you must find him/her guilty of this form of interference with
transportation. If, on the other hand,
you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable
doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of interference with
transportation.
OR
[THIRD DEGREE][13]
If you find that
the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this
offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that:
[CHOOSE
FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS]
Option 1.
the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused significant
bodily injury to another person
OR
Option 2.
the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] created a risk of significant
bodily injury to another person
OR
Option 3.
the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss
of $2000 or more.
I have already
defined ["purposely"] ["knowingly"] for you.
[CHARGE IF
APPROPRIATE]
To this point in
the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant
acted recklessly. There is good reason
for that. The issue of recklessness is
only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with
Transportation. A defendant is guilty of
this offense only if he/she acted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind. You may consider whether the defendant acted
recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the
defendant has been convicted.
A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof
when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’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 actor’s situation.[14]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences
drawn from one's conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding
circumstances. It therefore is not
necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said
he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you
examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
["Significant
bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a temporary loss of the
function of any bodily member or organ or temporary loss of any one of the five
senses.[15]
"Bodily
injury" means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical
condition.[16]]
[All jurors do
not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted purposely,
knowingly, or recklessly, so long as all agree that he/she
had one or the other state of mind.][17]
[The value of a
pecuniary loss is the fair market value of the property of which the owner was
deprived at the time of his/her possession.][18]
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
[CHOOSE FROM
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS]
Option 1.
[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused significant bodily injury to
another person
OR
Option 2.
[purposely] [knowingly] created a risk of significant bodily injury to
another person
OR
Option 3.
[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss of $2000 or
more
[CHARGE IN ALL
CASES]
then you must find him/her
guilty of this form of interference with transportation. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt,
you must find him/her
not guilty of this form of interference with transportation.
OR
[FOURTH
DEGREE][19]
If you find that
the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this
offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that:
[CHOOSE FROM
THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS]
Option 1.
[the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused bodily injury
to another person]
OR
Option 2.
[the defendant [purposely][knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss
in excess of $500 but less than $2000].
I have already
defined ["purposely"] ["knowingly"] for you.
[CHARGE IF
APPROPRIATE]
To this point in
the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant
acted recklessly. There is good reason
for that. The issue of recklessness is
only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with
Transportation. A defendant is guilty of
this offense only if he/she
acted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind. You may consider whether the defendant acted
recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the
defendant has been convicted.
A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof
when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’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 actor’s situation.[20]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences
drawn from one's conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding
circumstances. It therefore is not
necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said
he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
["Bodily
injury" means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical
condition.[21]]
[The value of a
pecuniary loss is the fair market value of the property of which the owner was
deprived at the time of his/her
possession.][22]
[All jurors do
not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted [purposely]
[knowingly] [recklessly], so long as all agree that he/she had one or the other state of mind.]
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
[CHOOSE ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS]
Option 1.
[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused bodily injury to another
person
OR
Option 2.
[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss in excess of
$500 but less than $2000
[CHARGE IN ALL
CASES]
then you must find him/her
guilty of this form of interference with transportation. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find
him/her
not guilty of this form of interference with transportation.
