OPERATOR OR ANOTHER EXERCISING CONTROL
(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-10b and -10c) model jury charge
(Read Indictment)
The
pertinent portion of the statute defendant is charged with violating provides:
A person commits a crime . . . if, with purpose to withhold temporarily from
the owner, he takes, operates or exercises control over a motor vehicle without
the consent of the owner or other person authorized to give consent.[1]
In order for defendant to be found
guilty of this offense, the State must prove each of the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.
Defendant took,
operated or exercised control over a motor vehicle.
2.
Defendant acted
with the purpose of withholding the vehicle temporarily from the owner.
3. Defendant
acted without the consent of the owner or other person authorized to give
consent.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant took, operated or exercised control over a motor vehicle. “Motor vehicle” includes all vehicles
propelled otherwise than by muscular power, excepting such vehicles as run only
upon rails or tracks or motorized bicycles.[2]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant acted with the purpose of withholding the vehicle temporarily from
the owner. 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 circumstance if he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if he/she acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object or if
he/she means to do what he/she does. In other words, the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant took, operated
or exercised control over the vehicle his/her
conscious object was to withhold same temporarily from the owner.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant took, operated or exercised control over the vehicle without the
consent of the owner or some other person authorized to give consent.
[If applicable because there is evidence supporting it, the
following defense must be charged]
In
this case you must also consider whether the defendant reasonably believed that
the owner or any other person authorized to give consent would have consented
to the defendant’s operation of the vehicle had he/she known of it.
In
order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that either the defendant did not believe that the owner or
another person authorized to give consent would have consented to defendant’s
operation of the vehicle had (he/she) known of it, or that if defendant had
that belief, it was not reasonable.
If
you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any
element of the crime, [or has failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt
defendant’s lack of reasonable belief that he/she would have had the consent of the owner or another person authorized to
give consent to his/her operation of the vehicle had that
person known of it,] then your verdict must be not guilty of unlawful taking of
a means of conveyance.
If
you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of
the crime [and has proved beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s lack
of reasonable belief that he/she would have had the consent of the owner or another person authorized to
give consent to his/her operation of the vehicle had that
person known of it,] then you must find defendant guilty of the crime of
unlawful taking of a means of conveyance.
If
you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
committed the crime of unlawful taking of a means of conveyance, you must then
also consider whether the defendant is guilty of the crime of unlawful taking
of a means of conveyance and operating it a manner that creates a risk of
injury to any person or damage to property.
operates the motor vehicle in a manner that creates a
risk of injury to any person or a risk of damage to property.[4]
The
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s operation of the
motor vehicle was in a manner that created a risk of either injury to any
person or damage to property.
“Injury”
means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.
To
summarize, if you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt any element of the crime of unlawful taking of a means of conveyance,
then you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of unlawful taking of
a means of conveyance.
If
you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the crime of unlawful taking of a means of conveyance as I have
defined that crime to you, but you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the
State has proven that the defendant operated the motor vehicle in a manner that
created a risk of injury to any person or of damage to property, then you must
find defendant guilty only of unlawful taking of a means of conveyance.
If
you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant both committed the crime
of unlawful taking of a means of conveyance, and operated the motor vehicle in
a manner that created a risk of either injury to any person or of damage to
property, then you must find the defendant guilty of unlawful taking of a means
of conveyance creating a risk of injury to any person or damage to property.