USE OF FORCE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT
(N.J.S.A.
2C:3-7a) model jury charge
The defendant contends that he/she is not
guilty of the crime of because the force he/she used
was for the purpose of effecting an arrest.
Our
statute N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7a provides in pertinent part:
.....the use of force
upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or
assisting in making an arrest and the actor reasonably believes that such force
is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.
In determining whether the
defendant's (name) actions in this case meet the requirements of the statute,
you must decide the following issues:
(1) Was
defendant making or assisting in making an arrest when he/she used
force against the person of another?
(2) Did the defendant (name) reasonably
believe that the force he/she used in making or
assisting in making the arrest was immediately necessary to make the arrest?
(3) Was
the arrest lawful?
To answer these questions you must
determine from the evidence of this case whether from the totality of the
circumstances the defendant's beliefs were reasonable. A reasonable belief is one which a reasonable
person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the position of the defendant
would have under the circumstances existing at the time of the alleged
offense. Thus, a reasonable belief is
one which the ordinary person would have when confronted with the same
circumstances with which the defendant was faced in this case. The use of force is not justified by reason
of this defense unless a reasonable person would have reacted with the same
amount or level of force as used by the defendant herein, operating under the
belief that the force was immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest. If a defendant's belief is reasonable, he/she cannot
be found to have acted in a reckless or criminally negligent manner.
The fact that defendant's belief may
have been erroneous does not deprive the defendant of his/her privilege to use force to effect a lawful
arrest if you find that a reasonable person would have held the same belief
under the circumstances with which the defendant was faced at the time of his/her actions.
Therefore, your determination of whether the defendant reasonably believed
that the amount of force used was immediately necessary and not excessive under
the circumstances must be made from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of his/her acts and not from your viewpoint as jurors
now looking at his/her acts.
The statute requires that the force
used was necessary to effect a "lawful arrest." An arrest, as that term is used in criminal
law, signifies the apprehension or detention of the person of another in order
that he/she may be
forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime. In order for the arrest to be lawful, there
must exist within the arresting officer's knowledge facts sufficient to warrant
a prudent person in believing that the person arrested had committed or was
committing a criminal offense. In other
words, there must at least be a well-grounded suspicion that a criminal offense
has been or is being committed.
The burden is upon the State to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of justifiable conduct is
untrue, and hence there must be an acquittal if there is a reasonable doubt as
to whether the defendant did act justifiably within the definition of that
defense as just instructed.
