INTERFERENCE WITH MONITORING DEVICE
(N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.95) model jury charge
Count
_______________ of the indictment charges defendant with the crime of
interference with a monitoring device.
[READ COUNT OF
INDICTMENT]
That
statute provides in pertinent part:
Any person who
tampers with, removes or vandalizes a device worn or utilized by a monitored
subject is guilty of a crime.
In
order for you to find defendant guilty of this crime, the State must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant
tampered with, removed or vandalized a monitoring device;
2. that the
monitoring device was worn or utilized by a monitored subject; and
3. that the defendant acted knowingly.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant tampered with, removed or vandalized a monitoring device.[1] A monitoring device is a device used to
provide for a system of continuous satellite-based monitoring.[2] A monitoring system provides:
1. Time-correlated
or continuous tracking of the geographic location of the monitored subject
using a global positioning system based on satellite and other location
technology; and/or
2. An automated monitoring system that can
be used to permit law enforcement agencies to compare the geographic positions
of monitored subjects with reported crime incidents and whether the subject was
in the proximity of such reported crime incidents.[3]
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
monitoring device was worn by a monitored subject. A “monitored subject” means a person who has
been determined by the New Jersey State Parole Board to be appropriate for
continuous satellite-based monitoring of his/her
geographic location.[4]
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant acted knowingly.[5] 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 if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to the
result of his/her
conduct if he/she
is aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause such a result.[6]
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only
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 the
defendant’s acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all
surrounding circumstances.
If
you find that the State has proven all of these three elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty. If the State has failed to prove any of these
elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.
[1] If the
Defendant is someone other than the monitored subject, consider using the Model
Criminal Jury Charge on Accomplice Liability, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2C:2-6.
[2] N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.92a.
[3] N.J.S.A.
30:4-123.92b.
[4] N.J.S.A.
30:4-123.91a. and b.
[5] Because there is no mental state
specified in the statute, the knowing state of mind applies by virtue of N.J.S.A.
2C:2-2c(3).
[6] N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).
