CAUSING DEATH WHILE OPERATING ON THE REVOKED/SUSPENDED LIST
(N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22a) model jury charge
In
Count of this indictment, the defendant is charged
with the crime of causing the death of another while operating a motor vehicle
with a revoked or suspended driver’s license. The indictment alleges:
(READ APPROPRIATE COUNT OF INDICTMENT)
The
defendant is accused of violating a section of our statutes that makes it a
crime for a person who is operating a motor vehicle with a revoked or suspended
driver’s license to be involved in an accident that results in the death of
another.
In
order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant’s license was
suspended or revoked;[1]
2. That the defendant knew that his/her license was suspended or revoked;
3. That the defendant knowingly operated a
motor vehicle; and
4. That the defendant’s operation resulted
in the death of another.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant’s license was
suspended or revoked. A motorist’s license is suspended or revoked from the
time that the Division of Motor Vehicles or a court suspends or revokes that
license until the time that the Division restores it.[2]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knew that his/her license was suspended or revoked.[3]
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.
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined
only from 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 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 the 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
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant knowingly operated a motor vehicle.
The
fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant’s operation resulted in the death of another.
For
the defendant’s operation to result in the death of (insert decedent’s name),
the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
First,
the State must prove that the death would not have occurred but for the
defendant’s operation. In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that this death would not have occurred if the defendant had not operated
a motor vehicle.
Second,
the State must prove both:
(1)
that the death was not too remote in its occurrence as to have a just bearing
on
the defendant’s liability;
and
(2)
that the death was not too dependent upon the conduct of another person that
was unrelated to
the defendant’s operation as to have a just bearing on his/her
liability.
In
other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of
(insert decedent’s name) was not so unexpected or unusual that it would be
unjust to find the defendant guilty of this offense.
In
considering any conduct of a person other than the defendant, be aware that it
is not a defense that (insert decedent’s name) contributed to (his/her) own
death by reckless or negligent conduct, or reckless or negligent operation.
If
you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, the State has
failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.[4]
[1] See N.J.S.A. 39:3-40. When
the State alleges that the defendant was refused a license, that (his/her)
reciprocity privileges were suspended or that (he/she) had been prohibited from
obtaining a license, the charge should be modified accordingly.
[2] State v. Zalta, 217 N.J. Super.
209, 212-213 (App. Div. 1987). See also, State v. Sandoro, 272 N.J.
Super. 206 (App. Div. 1994).
[3] N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2c(3). But see, State
v. Wenof, 102 N.J. Super. 370, 375 (Cty. Ct. 1968), which holds that
a motorist need not have actual knowledge that (his/her) license has been
revoked or suspended as long as the Division of Motor Vehicles attempted to
notify the motorist of the suspension by means reasonably calculated to reach
(him/her).
[4] If the trial court plans to consider any
Title 39 charge as a lesser included offense, the jury should be advised
accordingly. State v. Muniz, 118 N.J. 333-334 (1990).