(Second
Degree)
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a(1)[1] model jury charge
Defendant is
charged with endangering the welfare of a child
(Read
Pertinent Count(s) of the Indictment)
The statute
upon which this charge is based reads, in pertinent part:
Any person having a legal duty for
the care of a child or who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child
who engages in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals
of a child is guilty of a crime.
To find
(defendant) guilty of this crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt these elements:
1. That (name of victim) was a child.
2. That
defendant knowingly engaged in sexual conduct, which would impair or debauch
the morals of a child.[2]
3. That
defendant had a legal duty for the care of the child or had assumed
responsibility for the care of the child.
The first
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (name of
victim) was a child.
A
"child" means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years at the
time of the offense. The State must
prove only the age of (name of victim) at the time of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. It does not have to
prove that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that (name of victim)
was under the age of eighteen (18).[3]
The second
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
knowingly engaged in sexual conduct, which would impair or debauch the morals of a child. Here, the State alleges that the sexual
conduct committed by defendant consisted of [summarize relevant allegations].[4] [IF APPLICABLE: [summarize defense claims.]] Sexual
conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child is conduct which
tends to corrupt, mar, or spoil the morals of a child under eighteen (18) years
of age.
The State does not have to show that
the sexual conduct actually impaired or debauched the morals of (the
victim). In analyzing the proofs to
determine whether the evidence demonstrates that defendant’s conduct would tend
to impair or debauch the morals of the child, evaluate the proofs in the
context of objectively reasonable contemporary standards.[5]
A person acts
knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or
the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware
that the conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or the
person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A
person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the conduct if he/she is aware
that it is practically certain that such conduct will cause a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent
terms have the same meaning.
Knowledge is
a condition of the mind. It 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.
The third
element that the State must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt is that
defendant had a legal duty for the care of the child or assumed responsibility
for the care of the child. A person
having a legal duty for the care of a child, or who has assumed responsibility
for the care of the child, includes a natural parent, adoptive parent, resource
family parent, step-parent or any other person who has assumed responsibility
for the care, custody or control of a child or upon whom there is a legal duty
for such care. A person who has assumed
the responsibility for the care of the child includes any person who assumes a
general and ongoing responsibility for the child and who establishes a
continuing or regular supervisory or caretaker relationship with the child.[6]
The
general and ongoing responsibility for the care of the child may be legal and
formal or it may arise from informal arrangements. It may be based, not only on a parental
relationship or legal custody, but also on less structured relations such as
cohabitation with the parent of the child.
A
person who assumes temporary, brief or occasional caretaking functions such as
irregular or infrequent babysitting would not meet the standards of general and ongoing responsibility for the
care of a child.
A
person who supervised a child on a regular and continuing basis over extended
periods of time and engages in matters that are generally committed to the
child’s parents would meet this
standard of general and ongoing responsibility for the care of a child.
In
determining the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the child
you should consider these factors: the disparity in ages or maturity, the
importance of the activity or activities the adult supervises to the child, the
extension of the supervising relationship beyond “guidance and advice” expected
given the adult’s supervising role, and the degree of dependence and trust the
child places in the adult.[7]
If the State has proven
each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant
guilty of endangering the welfare of a child.
If the State has failed to prove any of the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.
[1] By amendment effective August 14, 2013, the
Legislature reconfigured the endangering statute so that N.J.S.A.
2C:24-4a(1) refers to endangering by sexual conduct and N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a(2)
refers to endangering abuse or neglect.
This amendment has no effect on the substantive provisions of the
statute.
[2] In State v. Bryant, 419 N.J.
Super. 15, 27-28 (App. Div. 2011), the court concluded that when sexual
activity is involved, it need only be shown that the defendant engaged in the
sexual activity knowingly, not that he
knew that his conduct would impair or debauch the morals of the child.
[4] If the sexual conduct has been
charged in the indictment, remind the jury of the specific conduct to which the
indictment refers. If the sexual conduct is not alleged in the indictment,
instruct the jury on the elements of the specific sexual offense which the
State alleges has been committed. See
“sexual conduct” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b, 2C:14-1 and in State
v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348 (1988); State v. Miller, 108 N.J.
112 (1987); State v. Hess, 198 N.J. Super. 322 (App. Div. 1984); State
v. Davis, 229 N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div. 1988).
[6] State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 659-62 (1993). A person who has assumed responsibility for
the care of a child may include a teacher, employee, volunteer, whether
compensated or uncompensated, of an institution who is responsible for the
child’s welfare, or a person who legally or voluntarily assumes the care,
custody, maintenance, or support of the child. It can also include any staff person, as well
as teaching staff members or other employees, who have a legal duty for the care and
supervision of the child.
[7] State
v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 659-62 (1993). No reliance upon the definitions provided in N.J.S.A. 9:6-2 or 9:6-8.21 should be
utilized in describing the role of a parent, guardian or custodian.
State v. McInerney, 428 N.J. Super. 432, 449 (App. Div.
2012), certif. denied, 214 N.J. 175 (2013).
