HINDERING APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION FOR TERRORISM
(N.J.S.A. 2C:38-4) model jury charge
The defendant is charged with the
crime of hindering apprehension or prosecution of another for the crime of
terrorism, in that he/she is alleged to have (summarize appropriate
portions of indictment).
This charge is based upon a statute
which provides that:
A person commits a crime if, with purpose to hinder
the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or
punishment of another for the crime of terrorism, he [refer to appropriate
portion of N.J.S.A. 2C:38-4a(1) thru (7)].
For you to
find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the essential elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Those elements are:
(1)
that the
defendant knew that (Name) had been or was likely to be charged with the
crime of terrorism;
(2)
that the
defendant (read appropriate subsection of N.J.S.A. 2C:38-4a(1) to
(7)); and
(3)
that the
defendant acted with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension,
investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of (Name).
The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant must have known that (Name) had been charged or was likely to
be charged with the crime of terrorism.
A person is guilty of the crime of terrorism if he/she commits or attempts, conspires or
threatens to commit [choose crime(s)[1]
from those enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:38-1c.] with the purpose [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE]:
(1)
to promote an act
of terror.[2] “Terror” means to convey the menace or fear
of death or serious bodily injury.[3] “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury
which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ.[4]
(2)
to terrorize five
or more persons.[5] “Terrorize” means to convey the menace of
fear of death or serious bodily injury by words or actions. “Serious bodily
injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which
causes serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily member or organ.[6]
(3)
to influence the
policy or affect the conduct of government by terror.[7] “Terror” means to convey the menace or fear
of death or serious bodily injury.[8] “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury
which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ.[9]
(4)
to cause by an
act of terror the impairment or interruption of public communications, public
transportation, public or private buildings, common carriers, public utilities
or other public services.[10] “Terror” means to convey the menace or fear
of death or serious bodily injury.[11] “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury
which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ.[12]
This does not
mean that the State must prove that (defendant) had actual personal knowledge
that (Name) had committed the crime of terrorism, but rather that he/she knew such facts either by his/her own observations or by information
given to him/her as would reasonably alert someone that (Name) had been or was
likely to be charged with the crime of terrorism.[13]
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.[14]
The second
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that on (date),
the defendant:
(1)
harbored or
concealed (Name).
Here, the State must prove that the defendant hid, or
protected, or sheltered or secreted (Name) from the authorities.
OR
(2)
provided (or
aided in providing) a weapon (or money, transportation, disguise or other means
of avoiding discovery or apprehension or affecting escape) to (Name).[15]
OR
(3)
(suppressed, by
way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime) OR
(tampered with a witness [or informant, document or other source of
information]), which (evidence, witness, etc.) might aid in the discovery or
apprehension of (Name) or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
OR
(4)
warned (Name)
of impending or imminent discovery or apprehension. [CHARGE WHEN APPROPRIATE:
You have heard evidence from which you may find that defendant gave the warning
in connection with an effort to bring [Name] into compliance with the
law.[16] You cannot convict defendant under this
provision unless the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
did not give the warning in connection with such an effort.]
OR
(5)
prevented or
obstructed, by means of force, intimidation or deception, (Name) from
performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of (other)
or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
OR
(6)
aided (Name)
to protect or expeditiously profit from an advantage derived from such
crime. This means that after the crime
was committed, the defendant assisted (Name) in carrying out his unlawful
objective for a share in the proceeds or some other reason.[17]
OR
(7)
gave false
information to a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer is a person
whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection,
apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of the State.[18]
The third
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
defendant acted with the purpose of hindering (Name)’s detention,
apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment for the
crime of terrorism. 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. Someone acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a purpose,
with a particular objective in mind, if he/she really means to do what he/she does. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design,” or
equivalent terms have the same meaning.[19]
A purpose to
aid another to avoid arrest is not proved merely by showing that the defendant
helped someone who was a fugitive, for such help may be provided with
motivations having nothing to do with impeding law enforcement. The objective of the defendant must have been
to obstruct, to prevent, to hinder the authorities from arresting, prosecuting,
convicting or punishing (Name) for an offense.
Purpose and
knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be
determined by 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 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.
If after
considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has provided each
of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict must be
guilty. On the other hand, if you find
that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable
doubt, then your verdict must be not guilty.
DEGREE
[WHERE APPROPRIATE]
If you find
the defendant guilty of the crime of hindering apprehension or prosecution for
terrorism, you must go on to decide whether the State has proven that the crime
of terrorism that [Name] committed resulted in death.[20]
If the State
has proven each of the elements of hindering beyond a reasonable doubt, and you
further conclude that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
crime of terrorism resulted in death, then your verdict must be guilty of
hindering apprehension or prosecution for a crime of terrorism that resulted in
death.
If the State
has proven each of the elements of hindering beyond a reasonable doubt, but you
conclude that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime
of terrorism resulted in death, then your verdict must be guilty of hindering
apprehension or prosecution of terrorism.
[1] After
stating which purpose(s) the defendant allegedly had in aiding (Name),
instruct the jury on the elements of the crime listed in N.J.S.A.
2C:38-1c. that (Name) is alleged to have committed, along with the model
instructions for attempt or conspiracy if they are applicable.
[2] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2a(1).
[3] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2d.
[4] N.J.S.A.
2C:11-1b.
[5] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2a(2).
[6] N.J.S.A.
2C:11-1b.
[7] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2a(3).
[8] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2d.
[9] N.J.S.A.
2C:11-1b.
[10] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2a(4).
[11] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-2d.
[12] N.J.S.A.
2C:11-1b.
[13] Cf. State v. Lynch, 79 N.J. 327,
339 (1979).
[14] N.J.S.A.
2C:2-2b(2).
[15] See
notation in II Commentary: Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law
Review Commission 284-5 (1971), pertaining to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3:
“Providing a fugitive with funds is an act of equivocal significance. He may use it to escape or hide, to pay debts
or go into business, or to support himself or his dependents, or to hire a
lawyer. Paragraph b [now 3a(2)] is intended
to require proof that money was furnished not merely pursuant to a general
desire to promote the offender’s plan to remain at large, but specifically to
facilitate escape efforts.”
[16] N.J.S.A.
2C:38-4a(4).
[17] For
example, one might act as custodian of the proceeds of a bank robbery until the
robbers should agree on a distribution, or help a thief to collect a reward for
the return of stolen goods, or to exchange marked ransom money. Commentary, supra at 285.
[18] N.J.S.A.
2C:25-19c.
[19] N.J.S.A.
2C:2-2(b)(1).
[20] If the
issue arises from the evidence, the jury should be charged on the issue of
causation within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3.
