[Where crime occurred on or after April 28, 2000]
[Count
of] [T]he indictment charges the defendant
with obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function. That
section of our statutes provides that
A person commits an offense if he
purposely obstructs, impairs, or perverts the administration of law or other
governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from
lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation,
force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any
independently unlawful act. In order to
find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove each of the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1)
that the defendant
(a) committed an act of flight, intimidation,
force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle
OR
(b)
committed an unlawful act [WHERE
APPLICABLE: as charged in count of
the indictment];
(2)
that the act was committed for the purpose of
(a)
obstructing, impairing, or perverting the administration of law or other
governmental
function
OR
(b)
preventing a public servant from lawfully performing an official function; and
(3)
that in committing the act, the defendant did [OR attempted to]
(a) obstruct, impair, or pervert the
administration of law or other governmental function
OR
(b) prevent a public servant from
lawfully performing an official function.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant committed
(a)
an act of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical
interference or obstacle. In other words, the State must prove that the
defendant affirmatively did something to interfere or place an obstacle to
prevent the public servant from performing an official function.[1]
Specifically, the State alleges that the defendant committed the act of .
OR
(b)
an unlawful act: in other words, an act that is, without regard to its
purpose to obstruct justice, already declared illegal.[2] In this case, the State alleges that the
defendant committed the unlawful act of . [CHARGE IF APPLICABLE:
I have already defined the elements of that crime (or will define the elements
of that crime) in my instructions concerning count .[3]] You
cannot find the defendant guilty of obstructing the administration of law or
other governmental function unless you find him/her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed this unlawful act
[OR the crime charged in count ].
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant committed the unlawful act(s) for the purpose of [obstructing,
impairing, or perverting the administration of law or other governmental
function] OR [preventing a public servant from lawfully performing an official
function].
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.
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
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 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 in
committing the act, the defendant did (OR attempted to[4])
(a)
obstruct, impair, or pervert the administration of law or the official
governmental function of .
OR
(b)
prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function.
A public servant means any officer or employee of government. In this case, the
State alleges that the defendant prevented (or attempted to prevent) a [choose applicable title set forth in N.J.S.A.
2C:27-1g] from lawfully performing the official function of .
[CHARGE
WHEN APPLICABLE: You cannot find the defendant guilty of this charge if he/she and a public servant engaged in a
private altercation that happens to occur at a time when the victim is engaged
in official duties.[5]]
If the State has failed to prove any element of this offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If the
State has proven each element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then
you must find the defendant guilty.
[WHEN GRADING OF THE OFFENSE IS AT
ISSUE, CHARGE AS FOLLOWS]
If
you find the defendant guilty of obstructing the administration of law or other
governmental function, you must go on and determine whether the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has obstructed the
investigation or detection of a crime, or prosecution of a person for a crime.
In this case, the State alleges that the defendant obstructed the
identification, detection, or prosecution of for the crime of . If you find that the State
has proven this allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of obstruction of the investigation or detection of a crime,
or prosecution of a person for a crime. If the State has failed to prove this
allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of
obstructing the investigation or detection of a crime, or prosecution of a
person for a crime, but guilty of obstructing the administration of law or
other governmental function.
[2] II Commentary, Final Report of the New
Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1, comment
4, page 282 (1971). See also State v. Perlstein, 206 N.J.
Super. 215, 222 (App. Div. 1980).
[3] This alternative instruction is
included for use in those cases in which the State’s theory is that the only
act of obstruction or interference the defendant is alleged to have committed
is also a crime that is the subject of a separate count in the indictment on
which the defendant is being tried. See, for instance, State
v. Branch, 155 N.J. 317, 328 (1998) (referring to Model Criminal
Jury Charge on “Felony Murder – Slayer Participant” [January 27, 1997]); State
v. Grey, 147 N.J. 4, 17 (1996).
[4] When an attempt to prevent a public
servant from lawfully performing an official function is alleged, or when
attempt to commit the obstructing act is charged pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2C:5-1, include the Model Jury Charge on the definition of Attempt.
[5] 1971 Commentary, supra,
comment 3, pages 281-282. A similar instruction should be given if the case
raises the issue of whether the defendant failed “to perform a legal duty other
than an official duty, or [committed] any other means of avoiding compliance
with the law without affirmative interference with governmental functions,”
which are specifically excluded from the scope of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1.
