KILLING
AN ANIMAL USED BY A
LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG
N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3.1(a)
Count _____ of this indictment
charges the defendant with the crime of killing an animal who was owned or used
by a law enforcement agency or an animal who was a search and rescue dog.
(READ
INDICTMENT)
The applicable statute provides, in
pertinent part, that:
Any person who purposely kills a dog, horse or other
animal owned or used by a law enforcement agency or a search and rescue dog . .
.
is guilty of a crime.
In order for you to find the
defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant purposely killed a
dog, horse or other animal;
2. that the dog, horse or other animal was
(CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE) owned or
used by a law enforcement agency (OR)
or a search and rescue dog; and
3. that the defendant knew that the dog,
horse or other animal was (CHOOSE AS
APPROPRIATE) owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog.
The first element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely killed a dog,
horse or other animal.
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 believes or hopes that they exist. A person acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a specific
intent, with a particular object or purpose, or if he/she means to do what he/she does.
Purpose 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 second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the dog, horse or other animal was
(CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE) owned or used
by a law enforcement agency OR a
search and rescue dog. (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE). A law enforcement agency is a department,
division, bureau, commission, board or other authority of the State or of any
political subdivision thereof which employs law enforcement officers.[1]
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
term “search and rescue dog” means any dog trained or being trained for the
purpose of search and rescue that is owned by an independent handler or member
of a search and rescue team, and used in conjunction with local law enforcement
or emergency services organizations for the purpose of locating missing persons
or evidence of arson.[3]
The third element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that the dog, horse
or other animal that was killed was (CHOOSE
AS APPROPRIATE) owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog.
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.
Like purpose, 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.
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.
