LURING
(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6) model jury charge
The defendant is charged in Count of the indictment with luring.
[Read Count of Indictment]
The statute upon which this Count of
the Indictment is based states in pertinent part that:
A
person is guilty of luring if he attempts, via electronic or any other means,
to lure or entice a child or one who he reasonably believes to be a child into
a motor vehicle, structure or isolated area, or to meet or appear at any other
place, with a purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child.
To find defendant guilty of this
crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt these elements:
1.
That (name)
was a child
OR
1. That defendant reasonably believed that
(name) was a child.
2.
That defendant attempted to
lure or entice (name) into a motor
vehicle, structure or isolated area or to meet or appear at any other place;
and
3. That
defendant had a purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is [choose
one] [that (name) was a child] [that
defendant reasonably believed that (name) was a child]. A “child” means any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time of the offense.
The second element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant attempted[1],
via electronic or other means, to lure or entice (name) into [Choose
appropriate] [a motor vehicle], [a structure] [an isolated area], [meeting or
appearing at any other place].
“Attempted” means “to try.”
“Motor vehicle” means all vehicles
propelled other than by muscular power, except vehicles that run only on rails
or tracks. Motor vehicle includes
motorcycles, motorized bicycles, trailers and tractors.[3]
“Electronic
means” includes, but is not limited to the Internet. “Internet” means the international computer
network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data
networks.[4]
“Structure”
means any building, room, ship, vessel or airplane and also means any place
adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business
therein, whether or not a person is actually present.[5]
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant’s purpose was to commit a criminal offense. “Criminal offense” means a breach or
violation of the criminal laws by conduct for which a defendant could be sent
to jail for more than six months. Here,
the State alleges that the defendant’s purpose was to _______________________
which
is an offense for which a defendant could be sent to jail for more than six
months. You must not rely upon your own
notions of the unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of defendant;
rather, you must consider whether the State has proven the specific unlawful
purpose charged.[6] The unlawful purpose alleged by the State may
be inferred from all that was said or done and from all of the surrounding
circumstances of this case.[7]
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 the individual is aware of the
existence of such circumstances or the individual believes or hopes that they
exist. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with
design” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
The term purposely is a condition of
the mind. A condition of the mind cannot
be seen. It can only be determined by
inferences from 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 that he/she
had a certain state of mind when he/she
did a particular thing. It is within
your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt
by inferences which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and conduct and from all he/she
said and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding
circumstances established by the evidence.
If the State has failed to prove any
element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find defendant not
guilty of luring or enticing the child.
If, however, the State has proved each element of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must find defendant guilty of luring or enticing the
child.
[1] Child luring does not involve an
attempt to commit some other substantive offense. State v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540,
551 (2003). Rather, like the eluding and
witness tampering statutes, the mere act of trying to entice a child is
criminalized. Id. at 550-51. See also State v. Mendez, 345 N.J.
Super. 498, 506 (App. Div. 2001), aff’d 175 N.J. 201 (2002). Thus,
the attempt statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, is not implicated, State v.
Perez, 177 N.J. at 553, and need not be charged to the jury.
[2] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third
College Edition (1988); Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), p. 477 (defining
entice).
