[RECKLESSLY] ENDANGERING
ANOTHER PERSON[1]
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-2b(2)) model jury charge
The defendant is charged
with the crime of Endangering Another Person.
(Read appropriate count
of the indictment)
The law upon which this
charge is based reads as follows:
A person commits a
crime...if he... [p]urposely or knowingly offers, gives or entices any person
to take or accept any treat, candy, gift, food, drink or other substance that
is intended to be consumed which is poisonous, intoxicating, anesthetizing,
tranquilizing, disorienting, deleterious or harmful to the health or welfare of
such person, without the knowledge of the other person as to the identity and
effect of the substance....
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this
offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That
defendant offered, gave or enticed (insert name of victim) to take or
accept any treat, candy, gift, food, drink or other substance that was intended
to be consumed which is poisonous, intoxicating, anesthetizing, tranquilizing,
disorienting, deleterious or harmful to the health or welfare of (insert
name of victim);
2. That
defendant did so without (the victim's) knowing the identity and effect of the
substance; and
3.
That defendant did this purposely or
knowingly.
Some of the words I have
used require definition. To
"entice" means to convince by presenting temptation or by exciting
desire. "Poisonous" means
having the effect of a substance that, through its chemical action, usually
kills, injures or impairs anyone who ingests it. To "intoxicate" means to make drunk
or inebriate. To "anesthetize"
is to render insensible. To
"tranquilize", as used here, is to render calm and peaceful by the
use of substances. To
"disorient" is to confuse. "Deleterious" means having the
tendency to injure or harm. [2]
A person acts purposely
with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result
thereof if it is a person's 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 a person is
aware of the existence of such circumstances or a person believes or hopes that
they exist. One can be deemed to be
acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular
object, if one really means to do what he/she does.[3]
A person acts knowingly
with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the
attendant circumstances if a person is aware that his/her conduct is of that
nature, or that such circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high
probability of their existence. A person
acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if a person is
aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such
a result. One is said to act knowingly
if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if he/she comprehends his/her acts.[4]
Purpose and knowledge
are conditions of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined
only from inferences from conduct, words, or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce
a witness to testify that the defendant stated that he/she acted with a particular state of mind. It is within your power to find that proof of
purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences
that may arise from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct
in question.
If you find that the
State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find
defendant guilty. If, however, the State
has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find
defendant not guilty.
[CHARGE WHERE
APPROPRIATE]
If, and only if, you
find the defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you
must proceed to determine whether the State has also proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant committed the crime of endangering another person with
the purpose to commit or facilitate the commission of the crime of
__________________, the crime specifically alleged by the State.[5] You may not consider here any purpose to
commit or facilitate the commission of any other criminal offense but . [Define the crime alleged and its
elements].
Earlier, I defined purpose for you, and that definition
applies here, as well. In considering
whether the State has proven the specific purpose charged, you may weigh any
reasonable inferences that may arise from all that was said or done and all of
the surrounding circumstances of this case.
To facilitate the commission of a crime is to make it easier. The State need not prove that defendant
accomplished the unlawful purpose charged by actually committing the crime of ,
if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she acted with the purpose to commit or facilitate a (name of
crime).
So, if,
and only if, you find the defendant guilty of endangering another person,
beyond a reasonable doubt, then your verdict must also specify whether you find
that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed
the crime of endangering another person with the purpose to commit or
facilitate the commission of the crime of ____________________.
[1] While N.J.S.A.
2C:12-2 is entitled "Recklessly Endangering Another Person," the body
of the statute does not refer to reckless conduct but only to purpose and
knowledge. The court and counsel should
obviously avoid any reference to recklessness before the jury.
[4] N.J.S.A.
2C:2-2b(2).
[5] The statute refers to "another criminal
offense." The term "criminal
offense" equates with "crime" and does not include disorderly or
petty disorderly offenses. See State v. Olivera, 344 N.J.
Super. 583, 589 (App. Div. 2001).
