THE REVOKED/SUSPENDED LIST
(N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22b) model jury charge
In
Count of this indictment, the defendant is charged
with the crime of causing serious bodily injury to 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 serious bodily
injury to 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 serious bodily injury to 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 serious bodily injury to another. In other
words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s
operation caused serious bodily injury to (insert victim’s name).
Serious
bodily injury is bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that
causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of
the function of any bodily member or organ.[4]
For
you to determine that the defendant’s operation resulted in serious bodily
injury to (insert victim’s name), the State must prove the following beyond a
reasonable doubt:
First,
the State must prove that the serious bodily injury suffered by (insert
victim’s name) would not have occurred but for the defendant’s operation. In
other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this serious
bodily injury would not have occurred if the defendant had not operated a motor
vehicle.
Second,
the State must prove both:
(1) that the serious bodily injury was
not too remote in its occurrence as to have a
just bearing on the defendant’s liability; and
(2) that the serious bodily injury 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 serious
bodily injury suffered by (insert victim’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 victim’s name) contributed to (his/her) own
injuries 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.[5]
[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).
[5] 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).
