INTERFERING WITH A
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3.1(d) model jury charge
If
you find the defendant not guilty of (insert offense charged in the
indictment), you must consider the lesser-included offense of interfering
with a law enforcement officer using an animal.
The
applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:
Any person who interferes with any law enforcement
officer using an animal in the performance of his official duties . . .
commits an offense.
In
order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that was a law enforcement officer using an animal
in the performance of (his/her) official duties;
2. that the defendant knew that was a law enforcement officer using an animal
in the performance of (his/her) official duties;
3. that the defendant interfered with ; and
4. that the defendant knew that he/she was interfering with .
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that was a law enforcement officer using an animal
in the performance of (his/her) official duties.
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.[2]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knew that was a law enforcement officer using an animal
in the performance of (his/her) official duties.
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 if he/she is aware of a high probability of
their existence. A person acts knowingly
with respect to the 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.
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only
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 that the State
produce witnesses to testify that a defendant 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 defendant’s acts
and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time
and place, and from all surrounding circumstances.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant interfered with . Here, the State contends that the defendant (describe
the conduct allegedly engaged in by the defendant). On the other hand, the defendant contends that
(describe the defendant’s contentions).
The
final element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knew that he/she was interfering with . I have previously instructed you on the
meaning of a knowing state of mind.
If
you find that the State has proven each element of this offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, you find that the State has
failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find the defendant not guilty.