IMPERSONATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
N.J.S.A.
2C:28-8(b) model jury charge
(Defendant) is charged with falsely
pretending to hold a position as [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]: an officer, member, employee, or agent of [an
organization or association of law enforcement officers] with purpose to induce
another to submit to such pretended authority or otherwise to act in reliance
upon that pretense.
[READ
APPROPRIATE COUNT OF INDICTMENT]
This
charge is based upon a statute providing:
A person commits a
crime … if he falsely pretends to hold a position as [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]
an officer or member or employee or agent of any organization or
association of law enforcement officers with purpose to induce another to
submit to such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance
upon that pretense.
For (defendant) to be guilty of this
offense, the State must prove each of the following essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that
(defendant) pretended to hold a position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer,
member, employee, or agent of any organization or association of law
enforcement officers.
2. that that representation was false.
3. that
at that time (defendant) knew that that information was false.
4. that at that time (defendant) provided
that information with the purpose to induce another to submit to such pretended
official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant) pretended to hold a
position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer, member, employee, or
agent of any organization or association of law enforcement officers. Here, the State contends that (defendant)
pretended to hold a position as .
The second element that the
State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant’s) representation
that he/she held a position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer,
member, employee, or agent of that organization or association was false; that
is, at that time, (defendant) was not an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]
officer, member, employee, or agent of that organization or association.
The
third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that, when
(defendant) made his representation, he/she knew that that representation 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 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. One acts knowingly if one acts with
knowledge, consciously, or if one comprehends his/her acts.
The
fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that,
when (defendant) made that representation, his/her purpose was to induce another to submit to such pretended
official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense. 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 believes or hopes that they
exist. Someone acts purposely if he/she
acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular objective in mind, if he/she
really means to do what he/she
does. Here, the State contends that
(defendant’s) purpose was [summarize factual contention of State]. WHERE APPROPRIATE, ADD: Defendant contends that his/her purpose was .
Purpose
and knowledge are conditions of the mind.
They cannot be seen. Often, they
can be determined only by inferences drawn from a defendant’s conduct, words or
acts as presented in the evidence you have heard and seen. So, it is not necessary that the State
produce a witness or witnesses to testify that (defendant) said, for example,
that he/she
acted purposely or knowingly when he/she engaged in the conduct with which he/she is charged. You may find
that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt
by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and the
circumstances surrounding the conduct in question as you have heard from the
evidence.
If the State has proven each of these
elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant) guilty of this
charge. On the other hand, if the State
has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find (defendant) not guilty.