THREATENING
TO KILL, MAIM OR INFLICT HARM UPON AN ANIMAL USED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG
N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3.1(c) model jury charge
Count _____ of this indictment
charges the defendant with the crime of threatening to kill, maim or inflict
harm upon an animal owned or used by a law enforcement agency or an animal who is
a search and rescue dog.
(READ
INDICTMENT)
The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part,
that:
Any person who purposely threatens to
kill, maim or otherwise inflict harm upon a dog, horse or other animal owned or
used by a law enforcement agency or a search and rescue dog, under
circumstances reasonably causing the person to whom the threat is made to believe
that it is likely to be carried out . . .
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 threatened to kill, maim or otherwise inflict harm upon
an animal;
2. 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;
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; and
4. that
the threat was made under circumstances causing the person to whom the threat
was made to reasonably believe that the threat would likely be carried out.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely threatened
to kill, maim, or otherwise inflict harm upon 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
hopes that they exist. A person acts
purposely if he/she
acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, 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 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.
The fourth element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat was made under
circumstances causing the person to whom the threat was made to reasonably believe
that the threat would likely be carried out.[4]
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 the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
[3] N.J.S.A.
2C:29-3.1.
[4] Although
no caselaw addresses the standard in connection with this statute, there is
similarly-worded language contained in the Terroristic Threats (Threat to Kill)
statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b)).
The language in that statute has been interpreted to mean that the
threat must be such that it would reasonably convey a fear to an “ordinary person.”
