CRIMINAL COERCION
(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5) model jury charge
a. A person is guilty of
criminal coercion if, with purpose unlawfully to restrict another's freedom of
action to engage or refrain from engaging in conduct, he threatens to:
[Choose appropriate subsection(s)]
(1) Inflict bodily injury on
anyone or commit any other offense;
(2) Accuse anyone of an offense;
(3) Expose any secret which
would tend to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair
his credit or business repute;
(4) Take or withhold action
as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;
(5) Bring about or continue
a strike, boycott or other collective action, except that such a threat shall
not be deemed coercive when the restriction compelled is demanded in the course
of negotiation for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor acts;
(6) Testify or provide information
or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or
defense; or
(7) Perform any other act
which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor but which is
calculated to substantially harm another person with respect to his health,
safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal
relationships.
In order
for you to find the defendant guilty of violating this statute, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every one of the following elements:
(1) that the
defendant threatened to (choose from subsections a(1) to (7)); and
(2) that the
defendant acted with purpose unlawfully to restrict another’s freedom of action
to engage or refrain from engaging in conduct.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant
threatened
to (choose appropriate section[s]):
(1)
(a) inflict bodily injury on anyone. “Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness,
or any impairment of physical condition.[1]
(b) commit
an offense. The State contends that
defendant threatened to commit the offense of
(identify offense and instruct jury on its elements).
(2)
accuse anyone of an
offense.
(3) expose
any secret which would tend to subject any person to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, or to impair (his/her) credit or business repute.
(4) take
or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold
action.
(5) bring
about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective action. [WHERE
APPROPRIATE: The State additionally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the restriction compelled was not demanded in the course of negotiation
for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor acted in order to
prove that the threat should be deemed coercive.]
(6) testify
or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to
another’s legal claim or defense; or
(7) Perform
any other act which would not in itself substantially benefit the actor but
which is calculated to substantially harm another person with respect to (his/her)
health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or
personal relationships.
The second element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubtis that the defendant acted with purpose
unlawfully to restrict another’s freedom of action to engage or refrain from
engaging in conduct.
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 the
individual is aware of the existence of such circumstances or the individual
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. 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.
The term
“unlawfully” means against the law or illegal.
[CHARGE IF NO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ALLEGED]
If the State has failed to prove any
of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not
guilty of criminal coercion. If the
State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the
defendant guilty of the crime of criminal coercion.
[AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO N.J.S.A. 2C: 13-5a(2),
(3), (4), (6) and (7)]
Defendant
claims that he/she believed
the accusation or secret to be true or the proposed official action justified
and that his/her purpose
was limited to compelling ________ to behave in a way reasonably related to the
circumstances which were the subject of the accusation, exposure or proposed
official action, [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]
[by desisting from further misbehavior, making good a wrong done, or refraining
from taking any action or responsibility for which he/she believed
________ disqualified]. If the State
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have such a belief or
that his/her purpose
was not so limited, then you must find defendant guilty. If the State fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant did not have such a belief or that his/her purpose
was not so limited, then you must find defendant not guilty.
[GRADING]
If you find that the State has
proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this crime, then you must
determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant [threatened to commit the crime of _________] [had the purpose in
making the threat to commit the crime of _________.] I have already defined purpose for you earlier. The elements of _________ are [instruct jury
on crime threatened or crime that defendant had the purpose of committing].[2]
If you find that the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [threatened to commit the
crime of _________] [had the purpose in making the threat to commit the crime
of ________], then you must find him/her guilty of this form of criminal coercion. If, on the other hand, you find that the State
has failed to prove that defendant [threatened to commit the crime of ________]
[had the purpose in making the threat to commit the crime of ________] beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of criminal coercion.
[2] N.J.S.A. 2C:13-5b. “Similarly, for a defendant to be found
guilty of third-degree criminal coercion the State must prove that the
defendant threatened to commit one or more specific crimes (more serious than
crimes of the fourth degree) or that the defendant's purpose in making the
threat was to commit one or more specific crimes (of any degree). The charge
must identify the specific crime or crimes used to raise the criminal coercion
to a third-degree crime and explain the elements of each.” State v. Monti, 260 N.J. Super.
179, 189 n. 10 (App. Div. 1992).
