ASSAULT
AT A YOUTH SPORTS EVENT
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1f) model jury charge
Defendant
is charged in count __________ of this indictment with assault at a youth
sports event. Defendant is charged with violating a provision of our law that
provides that:
A person who commits a simple assault... in the presence of a child under 16 years of
age at a school or community sponsored youth sports event is guilty of a
crime...
In
order for you to convict the defendant of this offense, the State must prove
the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant committed a simple
assault;
2. That the simple assault occurred at a
school or community sponsored youth sports event;
3. That the simple assault occurred in the
presence of a child under 16 years of age at a school or community sponsored
youth sports event.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant committed a simple assault.
[CHARGE APPROPRIATE
SUBSECTION OF SIMPLE ASSAULT
N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, as facts warrant]
1.
CHARGE IF SIMPLE ASSAULT, N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1a(1) is alleged:
A person commits a
simple assault if he attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly
causes bodily injury to another. In order for you to find the defendant
committed a simple assault, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.
That the defendant attempted to cause or actually caused bodily injury to
another.
2. That
the defendant acted purposely, or knowingly or recklessly.
Bodily injury is defined as physical pain,
illness or any impairment
of the physical condition.
A person acts purposely
with respect to causing bodily injury if it is a person's conscious object to cause
bodily injury. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances
if a person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or a person
believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if
one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one really
means to do what he/she does.
A
person acts knowingly with respect to causing bodily injury if a person is
aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or
that such circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high probability of
their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if a person is aware
that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause bodily
injury. One is said to act knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts
consciously, if he/she comprehends his/her acts.
A person acts recklessly
with respect to causing bodily injury when a person consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will
result from his/her conduct. 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 the actor its disregard involves
a gross deviation from the standard of
conduct that a reasonable person would observe
in the actor's situation. One
is said to act recklessly if one acts with recklessness, with scorn for the
consequences, heedlessly, foolhardily.
The nature
of the purpose or knowledge or recklessness with which the defendant acted
toward the victim of the assault is a question of fact for you the jury
to decide. Purpose and knowledge and recklessness are conditions of the mind
which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from conduct,
words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or
witnesses who could testify that the defendant stated, for example, that his/her purpose was
to cause bodily injury. It is within your power to find that proof of
purpose or knowledge or recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt
by inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding
circumstances.
For
you to find that the defendant caused bodily injury to (insert name of
victim), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) would
not have been injured but for the defendant’s conduct.[1]
[IF AN ATTEMPT
IS ALLEGED, CHARGE APPROPRIATE
MODEL CHARGE ON ATTEMPT, N.J.S.A.
2C:5-1]
OR
2.
CHARGE IF SIMPLE ASSAULT, N.J.S.
A. 2C:12-1a(2) is alleged:
A person commits a
simple assault if he negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly
weapon. In order for you to find the defendant committed a simple assault, the
State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt
1. that the defendant caused bodily injury
to another;
2. that the defendant caused the bodily
injury by use of a deadly weapon;
3 that the defendant acted negligently.
Bodily Injury
is defined as physical pain, illness, or any impairment of the physical
condition of another.
Deadly Weapon is defined as any firearm or other weapon, device,
instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the
manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing
death or serious bodily injury.
A person acts negligently with respect to causing bodily
injury when he/she should be
aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists
or will result from his/her conduct.
The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive
it, considering the nature and purpose of his/her conduct and
the circumstance known to him/her, involves a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in
the actor's situation. A person is said
to act negligently if the person acts with carelessness, when compared to how a
reasonable person should act under the circumstances as they exist at the time
of the assault.[2]
OR
SIMPLE
ASSAULT, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(3) (SUBSTANTIAL STEP)[3]:
A person commits a simple assault if he
attempts, by physical menace, to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily
injury.
In order for you to find
the defendant committed a simple assault, the State must prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant
purposely attempted to put (NAME OF
VICTIM) in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
2. that the defendant did so by physical
menace.
The first element that the State must prove is whether
the defendant purposely attempted to put the (NAME OF VICTIM) in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
An attempt occurs, in the context of this
charge, if the defendant purposely does or omits to do anything which, under
the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or
omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to
culminate in his/her putting the victim in imminent
fear of serious bodily injury.
In order to find that the defendant attempted to put
another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, you must find that he/she did so
purposely.
A defendant 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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.
Purpose is a
condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by
inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to
produce a witness or witnesses who could testify that the defendant stated, for
example, that his/her purpose was
to put the victim in fear of imminent bodily injury.
It is within your power to find that proof of purpose has been furnished beyond
a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts
and the surrounding circumstances.
To find the that the defendant committed a simple assault
by attempting to put (NAME OF VICTIM) in
imminent fear of serious bodily injury by physical menace, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the purpose to put the victim
in imminent fear of serious bodily injury. The State must also prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant purposely did or omitted to do anything, which, under
the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or
omission that is a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to
culminate in his/her putting the victim in fear of
imminent serious bodily injury. However,
the step taken must strongly show the defendant’s criminal purpose. That is,
the step taken must be substantial and not just a very remote preparatory act,
and must show that the accused has a firmness of criminal purpose.
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.
Imminent
means likely to happen without delay.[4]
The
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant attempted to put
the victim in imminent fear of serious bodily injury by means of physical
menace. Physical menace is accomplished
through an act or acts which are physically threatening acts.[5] Words alone are insufficient to constitute
physical menace.
RESUMPTION
OF MAIN CHARGE:
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the simple
assault occurred at a school or community sponsored youth sports event.
A
school or community sponsored youth sports event means a competition, practice
or instructional event involving one or more interscholastic sports teams or
youth sports teams organized pursuant to a nonprofit or similar charter or
which are member teams in a youth league organized by or affiliated with a
county or municipal recreation department. This term does not include
collegiate, semi-professional or professional sporting events.[6]
The third element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant committed the simple
assault in the presence of a child under 16 years of age at a school or
community sponsored youth sports event.[7]
It
shall not be a defense to this charge that the defendant did not know that a
child under 16 years of age was present or that the defendant believed a child
who was present was 16 years of age or older, even if such belief was
reasonable.
If
you find that the State has proved each element of the 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.
[1] N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3a(1). If causation is contested, a
fuller explanation of causation may be needed.
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3.
[3] This
charge is applicable to an attempt under a "substantial step" theory.
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(3). If the facts of the case warrant, the charge should
be tailored to address the appropriate attempt theory. See N.J.S.A.
2C:5-1a.
[5] The
1971 Model Commentary to the Proposed Criminal Code stated that 2C:12-1a(3)
codified preexisting New Jersey law. See State v. Drayton, 114 N.J.Super.
490 (App. Div. 1971) and cases cited therein for treatment of how physical
menace was interpreted by pre-2C caselaw.
[6] N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1f
[7] Trial
courts should note that N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1f does not define
"presence." Specific language addressing the meaning of presence
should be included in any instruction if the facts and circumstances of the
case warrant.
