Monday, February 2, 2015

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2) model jury charge

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2) model jury charge

     (Defendant) is charged with endangering an injured person[1], (name), on (date).  This conduct is prohibited by a statute providing:
                        A person is guilty of endangering an injured victim if he causes bodily injury to any person or solicits, aids, encourages, or attempts or agrees to aid another, who causes bodily injury to any person, and leaves the scene of the injury knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person is physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself.

            To find (defendant) guilty of endangering an injured person, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:
1.         That he/she caused bodily injury to another or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid another person in causing bodily injury to the victim;

2.         That the injured person was physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself; and

3.         That he/she left the scene of the injury knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person was physically helpless, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself.

            The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant) caused bodily injury to another or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid a third person in causing bodily injury to another.  Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or impairment of physical condition.
            As to causation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, but for (defendant’s) conduct, the victim would not have suffered bodily injury.
            As to soliciting, aiding, encouraging, or attempting or agreeing to aid a third person in causing bodily injury to another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to endanger another person or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted to aid another in doing so.  It does not matter whether (defendant) actually caused such injury.  A person is guilty of an attempt if he/she 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 a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of a crime.
            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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.
            The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the person who suffered bodily injury was [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time.
            “Physically helpless” means the condition in which a person is unconscious, unable to flee, or physically unable to summon assistance.[2]
            “Mentally incapacitated” means that condition in which a person is rendered temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding or controlling one’s conduct, or of appraising or controlling one’s condition, which incapacity shall include but is not limited to an inability to comprehend one’s own peril.[3]
            The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant) left the scene of the injury knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person was [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time.
            A person acts knowingly when he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause bodily injury.  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 the high probability of their existence.  A person acts knowingly as 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.  Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
            In determining whether (defendant) acted purposely or knowingly, consider the nature of the acts themselves and the severity of the resulting injury.
            Whether (defendant) acted purposely or knowingly toward the injured person is a question of fact for you to decide.  Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind.  They cannot be seen.  Often, they can be determined only by inferences from conduct, words or acts.  Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that (defendant) stated, for example, that he/she acted purposely or knowingly when he/she did a particular thing.  It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances.  The place where the acts occurred and all that was done or said by (defendant) proceeding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the events leading to the interaction with (victim) are among the circumstances to be considered.
[CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]
            It is an affirmative defense to the crime that (defendant) summoned medical treatment for (the injured person) or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another person and protected (the injured person) from further injury or harm until emergency assistance personnel arrived.  (Defendant) must prove this defense by a preponderance of the evidence - that is to say, the greater weight of the credible evidence (or evidence that is more probable, more persuasive, or of greater probative value).  For (defendant) to prove this defense, the evidence supporting it must weigh more heavily in your minds and be more convincing than the evidence opposing it.  The burden of proof is sustained by the quality of the evidence, not the quantity.
[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]
            If the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) caused bodily injury to (the injured person), or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid another in causing bodily injury to (the injured person), and he/she knew or reasonably believed that (that [injured] person) was physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time, [CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: and (defendant) has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she summoned medical treatment for the injured person or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another person, and that he/she protected the victim from further injury until emergency assistance arrived], you must find him/her guilty of endangering an injured person.
            However, if the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) caused bodily injury to (the person), or solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to aid another in causing bodily injury to (the injured person), and he/she knew or reasonably believed that (that [injured] person) was physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time, injured, [CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: or if (defendant) has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she summoned medical treatment for the injured person or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another person, and that he/she protected the victim from further injury until emergency assistance arrived], you must find him/her not guilty.



[1]           The statute used the term “victim” in subsection a, the word “person” in subsection b, and the word “victim” in subsection c.  “Person” has been used to refer to the injured party here where the statute is not directly quoted in order to avoid any emotional connotation which might flow from repeating the word “victim.”
[2]           N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(b)(1).
[3]           N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(b)(2).