IGNORANCE OR
MISTAKE[1]
(N.J.S.A.
2C:2-4) model jury charge
[Charge when N.J.S.A.
2C:2-4a is claimed]
In this case, defendant contends
that he/she
is not guilty of (offense charged) because he/she
mistakenly believed that (describe mistake of fact or law). If you find that defendant held this belief,[2] then he/she
could not have acted with the state of mind that the State is required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt.[3]
[IF OFFENSE
CHARGED REQUIRES A PURPOSEFUL OR KNOWING
STATE OF MIND,
CONTINUE CHARGE AS FOLLOWS]
If you find that the State has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe that (mistake
of fact or law), then you must find him/her
not guilty of (offense charged).
However, if you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant did not believe (mistake of fact or law), and you find that the
State has proven all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you must find him/her
guilty of (offense charged).
[OFFENSE CHARGED
REQUIRES A RECKLESS STATE OF MIND,
CONTINUE CHARGE AS
FOLLOWS]
If you find that the State has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe that (mistake
of fact or law), or that he/she
was reckless in forming that belief, as I have already defined that term for
you, then you must find him/her
not guilty of (offense charged).
However, if you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant did not believe that (mistake of fact or law), or that he/she
acted recklessly in forming that belief, and you find that the State has proven
all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must
find defendant guilty of (offense charged).[4]
[IF DEFENDANT
CLAIMS “INCOMPLETE MISTAKE-OF-FACT”
PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A.
2C:2-4b, CHARGE AS FOLLOWS]
In this case, defendant contends
that he/she
believed that (describe mistake of fact or law). If you find that defendant held this belief,
then he/she
would not be guilty of (offense charged).
Instead, he/she
would be guilty of (lesser offense),[5]
the crime that he/she
actually would have committed had the facts proven to be as he believed.[6] The elements of the (lesser offense) are
___________.
If you find that the State has failed
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe the (mistake
of fact or law), then you must find defendant guilty of (lesser offense). However, if you find that the State has
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe that (mistake
of fact or law), and you find that the State has proven all of the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of
(charged offense).[7]
[IF DEFENDANT
CLAIMS THAT HE/SHE BELIEVED THAT
HIS/HER CONDUCT
DID NOT LEGALLY CONSTITUTE AN
OFFENSE PURSUANT
TO N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4c, CHARGE AS FOLLOWS]
In this case, defendant contends
that he/she believed that his/her conduct was not illegal because (describe mistake of law).[8] If you find that defendant held this belief
under the circumstances I will discuss shortly, then you cannot find him/her
guilty of (offense charged), because under these circumstances defendant could
not have acted with the state of mind that the State is required to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt before he/she
can be convicted of (offense charged).
In order for you to find that
defendant’s belief that his/her conduct was not illegal negates the state of mind required for
(offense charged), defendant must convince you by clear and convincing evidence
that (choose appropriate alternative):
(1) The statute defining the offense
is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably
made available prior to the conduct alleged;[9]
or
(2) He/She acted in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the
law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (a) a
statute, (b) judicial decision, opinion, judgment, or rule, (c) an
administrative order or grant of permission, or (d) an official interpretation
of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the
interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense;[10] or
(3) He/She otherwise diligently pursues all means available to ascertain
the meaning and application of the offense to his conduct and honestly and in
good faith concludes his conduct is not an offense in circumstances in which a
law-abiding and prudent person would also so conclude.[11]
Clear and convincing evidence is
that which produces in your mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of
the facts sought to be proven and is evidence so clear, direct, weighty and
convincing as to enable you to come to a clear belief, without hesitancy, of
the truth of the particular facts in issue.[12]
If you find that defendant’s belief
that his/her conduct was not illegal, and he/she
has convinced you by clear and convincing evidence that (applicable provision
of subsection c), then you must find him/her
not guilty of (offense charged).
However, if defendant has not convinced you by clear and convincing
evidence that (applicable provision of subsection c), or if you find that the
State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe that his/her conduct was not illegal, and if you find that the State has
proven all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find defendant guilty of (offense charged).
[1] Although the statute refers to mistake
of fact or law as a “defense,” caselaw makes it clear that it is not genuinely
a defense at all: instead, it is “an attack on the prosecution’s ability to
prove the requisite mental state for at least one objective element of the
crime.” State v. Sexton, 160 N.J.
93, 99-100 (1999). Since it is obviously
impossible for any single charge to “explain precisely how the offered defense
plays into the element[s]” of every possible offense that mistake of fact or
law could apply to (Sexton, 160 N.J. at 106), and at best can
offer “a more general charge on the subject” of mistake of fact or law (State
v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 319 (2004)), this model charge is organized
by reference to the state of mind under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b contained in
the offense charged by the State, and then by the degree to which the mistake
of fact or law exonerates or mitigates the defendant’s guilt. As always, the trial court must tailor the
precise type of mistake that defendant relies on to the facts of the particular
crime or offense charged and the facts adduced at trial. State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J.
373, 379-380 (1988).
[2] Since even an unreasonable mistake can
negate the required state of mind for the charged offense, the statutory
requirement that the defendant “reasonably arrived at the conclusion underlying
the mistake” was eliminated and, therefore, is not referred to in this model
charge. Sexton, 160 N.J.
at 105; Pena, 178 N.J. at 306.
[4] In Sexton, 160 N.J. at
106, the Court gives an example of how the jury should be instructed on mistake
of fact when reckless manslaughter is charged and the defendant contends that
he mistakenly believed that the weapon he fired was not loaded.
[5] In Pena, 178 N.J. at
313, the Court found a legislative “intent to allow the imperfect
mistake-of-fact defense to a defendant who commits one crime while believing
himself to be committing another, non-lesser included, offense.”
[7] In Pena, 178 N.J. at
319, the Court gives an example of how the jury should be instructed when
he/she is charged with possession of CDS, but contends that he believed that he
possessed stolen property other than CDS.
[8] In State v. Wikliff, 378 N.J.
Super. 328, 335 (App. Div. 2005), the Court noted that the mistakes of law
ordinarily cognizable under subsection a. will be “as to some external body of
law which may destroy the mens rea for the crime charged” rather than
“ignorance of the legal standard established by the statute....” The latter type of mistake is excusable only
under the narrow exceptions spelled out in subsection c.