ENDANGERING
THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, SEXUAL CONDUCT
(Third Degree)
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 who . . . engage[s] 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
the following elements:
1. That (name of victim) was a child.
2. That
defendant knowingly engaged in sexual conduct with (name of victim), which
would impair or debauch the morals of a child.[2]
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 sixteen (16) years at the time of the offense.
[IF SEXUAL CONDUCT OCCURRED AFTER AUGUST 14, 2013, use the following
definition of child] A "child" means any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years at the time of the
offense.[3]
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 [choose
appropriate][sixteen (16)] [eighteen (18)].[4]
The second
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
knowingly engaged in sexual conduct.
Here, the State alleges that the sexual conduct committed by defendant
consisted of [summarize relevant allegations].[5] [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.[6]
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.
If the State
has proven every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must
find defendant guilty of endangering the welfare of the child. If the State has failed to prove any element
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not
guilty of endangering the welfare of a child.
[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.
[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.
[3] In
the August 14, 2013 amendment, the Legislature eliminated third degree
endangering’s limitation that the victim be under 16 years of age.
[5] 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).