ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES
(N.J.S.A.
2C:28-4a) model jury charge
Count of the indictment charges defendant with False
Reports to Law Enforcement Authorities.
That section of our statutes, provides in pertinent part:
A
person who knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement
officer with purpose to implicate another commits a crime.
In
order to find defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.
That the defendant [knowingly
gave] [knowingly caused to be given] false information to a law enforcement
officer;
2. That
defendant knew, [at the time he/she
gave the information] [at the time he/she
caused the information to be given], that the information was false; and
3. That
defendant’s purpose in providing this false information was to implicate
another.
The
first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant
[knowingly gave] [knowingly caused to be given] false information to (name of
officer), a law enforcement officer. A law enforcement officer is a person whose
public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection,
apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of this
State.[1] Here, the State alleges that the false
information given to (name of officer) was_____________________________.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that, at
the time defendant [gave] [caused to be given] the information to (name of
officer), defendant knew the information was false.
A
person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her
conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she
is aware that his/her
conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances if he/she
is aware that his/her
conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he/she
is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a
result of his/her
conduct if he/she
is aware that it is practically certain that his/her
conduct will cause such a result.
“Knowing”, “with knowledge”, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
The
third element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
defendant’s purpose in giving the false information to (name of officer) was to
falsely implicate (name of victim).
Here, the State alleges that defendant offered false information to (set
forth State’s allegations).
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 he/she
is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she
believes or hopes that they exist. “With
purpose,” “designed”, “with design” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Purpose
and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen, and can only be
determined by inferences from the 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 inferences 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 the
surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.
If
you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each element of
the offense, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find that the
State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then
you must find the defendant not guilty.