VANDALIZING RAILROAD CROSSING DEVICES
(N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14.1)
Count ________ of the indictment provides
as follows:
[READ
COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT]
This count charges the defendant with
Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices in violation of a statute which provides
as follows:
Any person who [purposely] [knowingly]
[recklessly] [defaces] [damages] [obstructs] [removes] [impairs] the operation
of any railroad crossing warning signal or protection device, including, but
not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other
alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation,
which is required under the provisions of [the law][1] [or any other railroad property or equipment,
other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment] shall be guilty
of a crime. . .
In order for the
defendant to be found guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices, the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That the defendant [defaced] [damaged]
[obstructed] [removed] [impaired the operation of] any railroad crossing
warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety
gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system
authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the
provisions of [the law][2]
[any railroad property or equipment,
other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment]; and
(2) That the defendant acted purposely,
knowingly or recklessly.
The first element
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
the defendant [defaced] [damaged]
[obstructed] [removed] [impaired the
operation of] any railroad crossing, warning signal or protection device,
including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign]
[or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of
Transportation, which is required under the provisions of (the law)[3]]
[any railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings,
offices or equipment.]
The second
element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant
acted [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly].
[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 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 that cannot be seen and can only be determined by
inferences drawn from the defendant's conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to prove
the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such as a statement by
the defendant that he/she had a particular purpose.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.]
OR
[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.
Knowledge is a
condition of the mind that cannot be seen and can only be determined by
inferences drawn from the defendant's conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to prove
the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such as a statement by
the defendant that he/she had a particular knowledge. His/Her
state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.]
OR
[A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him/her,
its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.[4]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing
inferences from one's conduct, words or actions, and from all of the
surrounding circumstances. It therefore
is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the
defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.]
If the State has
failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find
the defendant not guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If the State has proven every element beyond
a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of Vandalizing Railroad
Crossing Devices.
GRADING
[CHOOSE
APPROPRIATE]
If you find that
the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this
offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant's [defacement] [damage] [obstruction]
[removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the protection device]
[the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [death] [serious bodily
injury] to another person.
A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and
the circumstances known to him/her,
its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.[5]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing
inferences from one's conduct, words or actions, and from all of the
surrounding circumstances. It therefore
is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the
defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
"Serious
bodily injury" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of
death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or
impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.[6] "Bodily injury" means physical pain,
illness or any impairment
of physical condition.[7]
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly
caused [death] [serious bodily injury] to another person, then
you must find him/her
guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt,
you must find him/her
not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices.
OR
If
you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's [defacement] [damage]
[obstruction] [removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the
protection device] [the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [bodily
injury] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more].
A person acts
recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. The risk must be of such a nature
and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and
the circumstances known to
him/her,
its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.[8]
Recklessness is a
state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing
inferences from one's conduct, words or actions, and from all of the
surrounding circumstances. It therefore
is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the
defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly.
His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that
particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find
that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances
surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the
evidence you have heard and seen in this case.
"Bodily
injury" means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical
condition.[9]
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly
caused [bodily injury to another person] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more],
then you must find him/her
guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt,
you must find him/her
not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices.
[IF AN ACT OF
GRAFFITI IS CHARGED]
If
you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's action(s) involved an act of
graffiti.
An "act of
graffiti" means the drawing, painting or making of any mark or inscription
on public or private real or personal property without the permission of the
owner.
If you find that
the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's action(s)
involved an act of graffiti, then you must find him/her
guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable
doubt, you must find him/her
not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices.[10]
[1] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29.
[2] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29.
[3] The statute cites N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29.
N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 provides as follows:
Protections at grade crossings; group signals
Every
company operating on a fixed track or tracks, freight or passenger trains or
cars, shall provide protection to pedestrians and the traveling public at every
crossing of its tracks by any public road.
Such protection may be in the form of safety gates, flagmen, electric
bell, electric signs or other recognized system of alarm or protection approved
by the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
When
several crossings lie so close together that an audible signal at one crossing
may be sufficiently heard at others near it, such crossings may be protected by
such device or signals as will sufficiently protect all crossings in the group.
When
on any line or part thereof all traffic is discontinued for any part of the
night, no crossing guards need be operated while traffic is so discontinued.
This
section shall not apply to street car lines or tracks used principally for
street car purposes.
The
provisions of this section shall be construed to be mandatory and shall be
operative without order or direction of the board.
N.J.S.A. 48:2-29
provides as follows:
Protection at Grade Crossings
Whenever it shall appear to the board that a public highway and a
railroad or a street railway, or that a railroad and a street railway, cross
one another at the same level and that conditions at such grade crossing make
it necessary that gates be erected or that some other reasonable provision for
the protection of the traveling public be adopted, the board may order the
railroad or street railway company or both, to install such protective device
or adopt such other reasonable provision for the protection of the traveling
public at the crossing as in the discretion of the board shall be
necessary.
[6] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1b. While the cited statute limits this
definition to chapters 11 through 15, the definition appears appropriate here.
[7] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. While the cited statute limits this
definition to chapters 11 through 15, this definition appears appropriate here.
[9] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a.
While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through
15, this definition appears appropriate here.
[10] The court should utilize
a special verdict sheet to ask the jury the amount of the pecuniary damage
caused by the act of graffiti.
