THEFT
FROM THE PERSON
N.J.S.A.
2C:20-2b(2)(d)
Count _____ of the indictment charges
defendant with theft from the person.
(READ
INDICTMENT)
The statute upon which this count of the
indictment is based states in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of theft if he
unlawfully takes, or exercises control over movable property of another with
purpose to deprive him thereof.
In order for you to find defendant guilty
of this offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1.
That
the defendant knowingly took or unlawfully exercised control over movable
property;
2. That the movable property was property of another;
3. That the movable property was taken from the
person of another; and
4. That defendant’s purpose was to deprive the other person of the
movable property.
The first element the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly took or exercised
unlawful control over movable property.
Movable property means property the location of which can be changed,
including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, or documents,
although the rights represented thereby have no physical location.
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 he/she is aware of a high probability of their
existence. A person acts knowingly with
respect to a result of his/her
conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause such a result.
“Knowingly,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent terms have the same
meaning.
In this case, the State alleges that the
movable property taken or over which control was unlawfully exercised was
(describe property). The State need not
prove that the property was carried out of the place in which it was kept, but
only that it was moved or taken from its original location or that defendant
exercised unlawful control over it.[1]
Knowledge is a condition of the mind
which cannot be seen and can only be determined 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 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 his/her
acts and his/her
conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all
of the surrounding circumstances.
The second element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the movable property is property of
another. Property of another includes [choose
appropriate] property in which any person other than the actor has an
interest which the actor is not privileged to infringe, regardless of the fact
that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the
property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as
contraband. Property in possession of
the actor shall not be deemed property of another who has only a security
interest therein, even if legal title is in the creditor pursuant to a
conditional sales contract or other security agreement.[2]
The term property of another is broadly
defined so as to include services and intangibles, anything of value.[3] Anything of value is defined as any direct or
indirect gain or advantage to any person.[4]
The third element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the property was taken from the person
of another. That is, the State must
prove that at the time of the theft, the property stolen was within the
immediate custody and control of another.
The fourth element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant’s purpose was to deprive the
other person of the movable property.
Deprive means to withhold or cause to be withheld property of another
permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a substantial portion
of its economic value or with purpose to restore only upon payment of reward or
other compensation or to dispose or cause disposal of the property so as to
make it unlikely that the owner will recover it.
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 the individual is aware of the existence
of such circumstances or the individual believes or hopes that they exist. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design” or
equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Purpose is a condition of the mind. A condition of the mind cannot be seen. It can only be determined by inference from
defendant’s 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 did a particular thing.
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 his/her
acts and conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place and from all
surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.
If you find that the State has proven
every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of
theft from the person. If you find that
the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you must find defendant not guilty.
