TERRORISTIC
THREATS[1]
(THREATS
TO KILL)
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-3(b)) model jury charge
Count of the indictment charges defendant with
committing [a] terroristic threat[s].
[READ
COUNT OF INDICTMENT]
That section
of our statutes provides in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of a crime
if he threatens to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of
death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the
immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out.
In order to convict defendant
of the charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:
1. That the defendant threatened to kill
another person;
2. That the threat was made with the purpose to put the person
in imminent fear of death; and,
3. That the threat was made under circumstances which
reasonably caused the person to believe that the threat was likely to be
carried out.
The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
threatened to kill (name of victim). The words or actions of the defendant must be
of such a nature as to convey menace or fear of being killed to the ordinary
person. It is not a violation of this
statute if the threat expresses fleeting anger or was made merely to alarm.[2]
The second element that the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat was made with the
purpose to put (name of victim) in
imminent fear of death.
The third
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat
was made under circumstances which made (name of victim) believe that
the threat was likely to be carried out.[3] The threat must be such that it would
reasonably convey a fear of death to an ordinary person.[4]
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 inference 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 inference 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 you find that the State
has proven all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find the defendant guilty. If,
however, you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.
[1] The court should consider cautioning the jury that this
charge does not deal with “terrorism” in the post September 11, 2001, sense of
the term.
[2] See Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law
Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary (October 1971).
[3] It is unclear whether the statute requires that the victim
be aware of the threat to support a conviction.
See State v. Ortisi, 308 N.J. Super. 573, 597 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 383
(1998) (Court “leaves for another day” issue of whether victims must be made
aware of the threat because the evidence in the case showed that victims knew
of threat).