RECKLESS
MANSLAUGHTER
(N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4b(1) model jury charge
The defendant is charged1 by indictment with the crime of reckless
manslaughter. The indictment reads as follows:
(Read the
appropriate count of indictment)
A person is guilty of reckless manslaughter if he/she recklessly causes the
death of another person.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of reckless manslaughter, the
State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and
(2) that the defendant did so recklessly.
One element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted recklessly.2
1 If manslaughter is to be charged as a lesser
included offense under an indictment charging murder, the manslaughter charge
is incorporated in the murder/manslaughter charge and the appropriate charge on
murder/manslaughter should be utilized.
2 Note that where it is alleged that the defendant caused the death of
another by operating a motor vehicle or vessel, death by auto or vessel “shall
be considered a lesser-included offense” under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5d. In
such a case, see the charge on Death by Auto (or Vessel) (N.J.S.A.
2C:11-5), and include in this portion of the charge, as well as in the
subsequent charge on death by auto (or vessel), the following language
distinguishing the two offenses:
It is important that you understand the difference between reckless
manslaughter and the lesser-included offense of death by auto (or vessel), for
which I will soon be providing you with additional instructions. Reckless
manslaughter requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove
his/her vehicle (or vessel) recklessly, and also that he/she engaged in
additional acts of recklessness, independent of his/her operation of the
vehicle (or vessel), that contributed to the victim’s death. Death by auto (or
vessel), on the other hand, only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant recklessly drove his/her vehicle (or vessel), causing the death
of another, and it requires no additional acts of recklessness. Here, the State
alleges the following additional acts of recklessness:
(INSERT
APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE ON THE FACTS, SUMMARIZE
DEFENDANT’S FACTUAL CONTENTIONS AS WELL)
Whether the defendant was reckless in his/her operation of the motor
vehicle (or vessel) and/or whether the defendant was additionally reckless as
alleged by the State is for you the jury to decide based on the evidence in the
case. It is only where you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was in fact reckless both in the operation of the motor vehicle (or
vessel) and in the additional manner as alleged by the State that you may
convict the defendant of the charge of reckless manslaughter.
State v. Jimenez, 257 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div.
1992).
Page 1 of 4 RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4b(1)
3 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(3).
4 This expanded explanation of recklessness is adapted from the following
portion of the Code Commentary:
The Code requires, however, that the risk thus consciously disregarded by
the actor be substantial and unjustifiable; even substantial risks may be
created without recklessness when the actor seeks to serve a proper purpose.
Accordingly, to aid the ultimate determination, the Code points expressly to
the factors to be weighed in judgment: the nature and degree of the risk
disregarded by the actor, the nature and purpose of his conduct and the
circumstances known to him in acting.
Some principle must be articulated, however, to indicate what final
judgment is demanded after everything is weighed. There is no way to state this
value-judgment that does not beg the question in the last analysis. The point
is that the jury must evaluate the conduct and determine whether it should be
condemned. The Code, therefore, proposes that this difficulty be resolved by
asking the jury whether the defendant's conduct involved a gross deviation from
the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe. This seems to
us to be the most appropriate way to put the issue to a jury. (2 Final Report
of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Commentary (1971) at 42.)
5 In State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J.
373, 380-381 (1988), the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction
of reckless manslaughter because the trial judge had selectively summarized
only one aspect of the critical events and had failed to explain that the jury
must make a preliminary finding resolving contrasting factual accounts of
events.
A person who causes another's death does so recklessly when he/she is aware
of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death
will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that, considering the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct and the
circumstances known to defendant, his/her disregard of that risk is a gross
deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in
the same situation.3
In other words, you must find that defendant was aware of and consciously
disregarded the risk of causing death. If you find that defendant was aware of
and disregarded the risk of causing death, you must determine whether that risk
that he/she disregarded was substantial and unjustifiable. In doing so, you
must consider the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and the
circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light of
those factors, defendant's disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from
the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in defendant's situation.4
(Summarize, if helpful, all of the evidence relevant to
recklessness, including any contrasting accounts of events by the defense and
the State.)5
Page 2 of 4 RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4b(1)
6 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(a)(1).
7 State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 377
(1988); N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3c.
8 State v. Martin, 119 N.J.
at 33.
The other element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is
that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death.
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is not an issue, charge
the following:)
You must find that (insert victim's name) would not have died but
for defendant's conduct.6
(If causal relationship between conduct and result is an issue,
charge the
fong:)7 Causation has a special meaning under the law. To
establish cau
prove two elements, each beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that but for the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have
died. Second, (insert victim's name) death must have been within the
risk of which the defendant was aware. If not, it must involve the same kind of
injury or harm as the probable result of the defendant's conduct and must also
not be too remote, too accidental in its occurrence, or too dependent on
another's volitional act to have a just bearing on the defendant's liability or
on the gravity of his/her offense. In other words, the State must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that (insert victim's name) death was not so unex
w
[NOTE: In cases where Causation - Removal of Life Support
should be instructed as follows: You have heard testimony
that on [date], (insert victim’s name) was taken off life
Page 3 of 4 RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER N.J.S.A.
2C:11-4b(1) Page 4 of 4 from life support and then expired, unless there ntrasting
factual theories of causation, each version should be summarized sed (insert
victim's name) death, then your verdict must be (insert victim's name) death,
you must nd the defendant not guilty of reckless manslaughter.
9 State
v. Pelham, 176 N.J. 448, 455-456 and n. 2 (2003).
10 Pelham, 176 N.J. at 467.
11 State v. Martin, 119 N.J.
at 18.
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.9 That is, if defendant’s actions set in motion (insert
victim’s name) need for life 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
was an intervening volitional act of another.]10 (Where the
defendant and State offer co
for the jury.11)
[CHARGE IN ALL CASES] If after consideration of all the
evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
recklessly cau
guilty of reckless manslaughter. If, however, after consideration of all
the evidence you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
recklessly caused
fi
