RETALIATION FOR PAST
OFFICIAL ACTION
(N.J.S.A.
2C:27-5) model jury charge
The statute upon which this indictment is based reads in
pertinent part as follows:
A person commits a crime
. . . if he harms another by any unlawful act with purpose to retaliate for or
on account of the service of another as a public servant.
There are four elements of this
offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They are:
(1) that defendant harmed another,
(2) that the harm was the result of an unlawful act committed
by defendant,
(3) that defendant's purpose was to retaliate, and
(4) that the retaliation was for an official act done in the
capacity of a public servant.
Let me
explain each of these elements:
First, you must find beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant harmed another, namely ________________________. "Harm" means any loss, disadvantage
or injury, or anything so regarded by the person affected. It includes loss, disadvantage or injury to
any other person or entity in whose welfare _______________________ is
interested.[1]
Second, the State must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an unlawful act which caused
this harm. The unlawful act that the
State alleges that defendant committed is that of (insert offense). A person that another within the meaning of the law commits
an unlawful act. is defined elsewhere in our laws as
follows:____________________________________________________________________.
In short, with regard to the second
element, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
committed an unlawful act, namely .
The third element the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant's purpose in committing the
unlawful act was to retaliate against .
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. That is he/she means to do what he/she does.
"With purpose," "designed," "with design,"
or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Purpose is a state of mind that
cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from conduct, words or
acts. Therefore, it is not necessary
that the State produce witnesses to testify that a defendant said
that he/she purposely did
something. His/Her purpose may be gathered
from his/her
acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the
particular time and place, and from all the surrounding circumstances reflected
in the testimony [and adduced at trial].
Retaliation means to "pay
back" or "get even" with another by inflicting harm on the
person for something that person did or is perceived to have done previously to
the actor.
The fourth element the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the retaliation was for a past official
action done by a public official.
The State alleges that the prior
action for which it claims defendant was retaliating was ________________________.
may be considered by you as an official
action.
"Public servant" means any
officer or employee of government.[2] The State claims that was acting as when (he/she) .
To recap, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1)
that defendant harmed another,
(2) that
the harm was the result of an unlawful act committed by defendant,
(3) that
defendant's purpose was to retaliate, and
(4) that
the retaliation was for an official act done in the capacity of a public
servant.
If you find that the State has
proven each and every one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find defendant guilty.
If you find that the State has
failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must
find defendant not guilty.
