MANSLAUGHTER
IN COURSE OF ELUDING AN OFFICER
(N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4a(2)) model jury charge
The defendant is charged in count with manslaughter in violation of N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4a(2). The indictment reads in pertinent part as follows:
(Read
indictment or appropriate count, if indictment contains more than one count.)1
The State contends that on (date), while committing the crime of fleeing
[or attempting to elude] a law enforcement officer, defendant caused the death
of [insert victim’s name].
The section of the statute applicable to this case reads in pertinent part
as follows:
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
The actor causes the death of another person while fleeing or attempting to
elude a law enforcement officer.
It does not matter that the act which caused death was committed
recklessly, or unintentionally or accidentally.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, the State is
required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, from all the evidence in the case,
all of the essential elements of the crime charged. Accordingly, before you can
find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1. That on or about [insert date] the defendant
was engaged in the crime of fleeing [or attempting to elude] a law enforcement
officer.2
1 It is assumed that the indictment would
contain a separate count charging defendant with the predicate crime of eluding
an officer.
2 If the facts indicate an attempted crime, see appropriate charge on attempt
elsewhere herein and modify to the extent necessary. And if defendant’s
involvement was or may have been as an accomplice (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6), see
appropriate charges elsewhere herein including, if also applicable, the defense
of renunciation (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(e)). MANSLAUGHTER
IN COURSE OF ELUDING AN OFFICER N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a(2) Page 2 of 4
3 State v. Martin, 119 N.J. 2, 11, 19-34 (1990).
2. That the death of [name of victim]
was caused by the defendant.
3 That the death of [name of victim) was
caused at some time within the course of the defendant’s flight [or attempt to
elude] the law enforcement officer.
The first element requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was engaged in the crime of eluding by fleeing [or
attempting to elude] a law enforcement officer in violation of the criminal
code.
[Charge
elements of eluding an officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b, if not previously
charged.
See Model Charge.]
OR
[I have
already instructed you on the elements of the crime of eluding an officer.]
The second and third elements require the State to establish that the
victim’s death was caused by the defendant and was caused during the commission
of the crime of eluding. In order to meet its burden of proof as to the second
and third elements, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the
following:
1. That, but for defendant’s conduct in the commission
of the crime of eluding, the victim would not have died. In other words, that
the victim’s death would not have occurred without the commission of the crime
of eluding.3
2. That the victim’s death was a probable consequence
of the commission of MANSLAUGHTER IN COURSE OF ELUDING AN
OFFICER N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a(2) Page 3 of 4
4 The fact that a police officer’s pursuit
of the defendant may be the direct cause of the victim’s death does not
necessarily mean that the statute is inapplicable. If the evidence may support
such a theory, the court should give a fact-specific causation charge as
contemplated in State v. Martin, 119 N.J. at 16-18.
5 Where divergent factual versions give rise
to different theories of causation, the trial court must provide the jury with
appropriate instructions to apply, depending on which version it chooses to
accept. Thus, in appropriate cases the court must fashion its charge to
instruct the jury how to deal with the defendant’s (as well as with the
State’s) factual contentions. Martin, 119 N.J. at 16-18.
6 State v. Pelham, 176
N.J. 44, 455-456 and n. 2 (2003).
the crime of eluding.4 In order for the death to be a “probable consequence” of the crime of
eluding, the death must not have been too remote, or too accidental in its
occurrence, or too dependent on another’s volitional acts to have a just
bearing on the defendant’s liability or the gravity of his offense. In other words,
you must decide if the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that, under
all the circumstances, the death did not occur in such an unexpected or unusual
manner that it would be unjust to find the defendant responsible for the death.5
[NOTE: In
cases where Causation - Removal of Life Support is an issue, the jury
should be instructed as follows:
You have heard testimony that on [date], (insert victim’s name) was
taken off life support and that he/she died at some point after this was done.
Should you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (insert victim’s name) died
from medical complications that resulted from injuries caused by defendant’s
actions, the removal of life support, in this case (method of removal), is not
an intervening cause that relieves defendant of any criminal liability for
those actions.6 That is, if
defendant’s actions set in motion (insert victim’s name) need for life MANSLAUGHTER
IN COURSE OF ELUDING AN OFFICER N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a(2) Page 4 of 4
7 Pelham, 176 N.J. at 467.
support, without which death would result naturally, then the causal link
between defendant’s action and the death of (insert victim’s name) was
not broken by an unforeseen, extraordinary act when (insert victim’s name) was
removed from life support and then expired, unless there was an intervening
volitional act of another.]7
[CHARGE IN
ALL CASES]
In conclusion, you must decide whether, after a consideration of all the
evidence, that the State has proven to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable
doubt each of these elements, as I have just explained them:
(1) that the defendant was engaged in the commission
of crime of eluding, meaning that the State has proven the following
[recapitulate the elements of eluding an officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b];
(2) that the death of (name of victim) was caused by defendant;
(3) that the death of that person was caused at some
time during the crime of eluding;
If you find, after consideration of all the evidence,
that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you will find the defendant guilty of manslaughter.
On the other hand, if you find that the
State has failed to prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt any
one or more of these elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of
manslaughter.
