FALSE
IMPRISONMENT-LESSER INCLUDED[1]
(N.J.S.A.
2C:13-3) model jury charge
The
defendant is charged in the indictment with the crime of criminal restraint. If
you find the defendant not guilty of criminal restraint, you should go on to
consider the included offense of false imprisonment.
The statute
upon which the charge is based reads in pertinent part as follows:
A person is guilty of false imprisonment if
he knowingly . . .
(a) Restrains another unlawfully so as to
interfere substantially with his/her liberty.
In order for you to find the
defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove the following elements
of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant restrained [name
of victim];
2. That the restraint was unlawful;
3. That the restraint interfered
substantially with [name of victim’s] liberty; and
4. The defendant acted knowingly.
The first element that the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant restrained [name of
victim]. The word “restraint”
means confinement, abridgement or limitation.
Restraint involves hindrance, confinement or restriction of liberty.[2]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
restraint was unlawful.
[If the person restrained is
over the age of 14 and not incompetent, use the following definition]:
The
term “unlawful” means to accomplish the restraint by force, threat or
deception.[3]
[If the person restrained is
under the age of 14 or incompetent, use the following definition]:
The
term “unlawful” means to accomplish the restraint without the consent of the
parent, guardian or other person responsible for the general supervision of (his/her)
welfare.[4]
The third element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the restraint interfered substantially with [name of victim’s] liberty. Whether the
interference with a victim is substantial is for you to decide. A “substantial interference” is one that is
significant. If the victim is restrained
only slightly, and such restraint does not substantially interfere with his/her
liberty, then you must not convict the defendant of the false imprisonment
charge. In determining whether the
interference was substantial, you may consider the duration and manner of
restraint, and all other relevant facts and circumstances before you.
“Liberty”
means the state or fact of being free.
It is freedom from external restraint or compulsion of power, to do as
one pleases.[5]
With
regard to each of these elements, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant acted knowingly. 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 a high probability of
their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect 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.
Knowledge is a condition of the
mind, which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from the
defendant’s 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 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 his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she
said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding
circumstances reflected in the testimony [and evidence adduced at trial].
If after a consideration of all of the evidence you are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has proven all four elements
of the offense, then you must find the defendant guilty.
If you find that the State
has failed to prove any of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
[AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – CHARGE IF APPLICABLE]
Defendant contends that [name of alleged victim] was a
child, less than eighteen years old, that he/she was a relative or legal guardian of [name],
and that his/her sole purpose in restraining [name] was to assume control of the
child. I have already defined purpose
for you. It is the State’s burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name] was not a child, less than
eighteen years old, or that defendant was not a relative or legal guardian of [name],
or that defendant's purpose in restraining [name] was not solely to
assume control of the child.
If
you find that the State has proven all four elements of this offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, and you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that [name] was not a child, less than eighteen years old, or that
defendant was not a relative or legal guardian of [name], or that
defendant’s purpose in restraining [name] was not solely to assume
control of the child, you must find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if
you find that the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable
doubt, or that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name]
was not a child, less than eighteen years old, or that defendant was not a
relative or legal guardian of [name], or that defendant’s purpose in
restraining [name] was not solely to assume control of the child, you
must find the defendant not guilty.
