(FALSE ENTRY OR
ALTERATION)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:28‑7a(1)) model jury charge
The indictment charges the defendant with the crime of
tampering with public records or information and reads as follows:
(Read Indictment)
The statute upon which this charge is based reads in
pertinent part:
A person commits an
offense if he knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, any
record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government
for information or record, or required by law to be kept by others for
information of the government[1] . . .
[with the purpose to defraud or injure anyone.][2]
In order to convict the defendant, the State must prove
each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant made a false entry in,
or false alteration of, a record, document or thing;
(2) that the defendant knew that the entry or
alteration was false; and
(3) that the defendant knew that the record,
document or thing belonged to, or was received or kept by, the government for
information or record, or was required by law to be kept by others for
information of the government.
The first element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant made a false entry in, or false
alteration of, a record, document or thing. Here, the State alleges that the
defendant did. [Here, the court should state to the jury the allegation(s)
made by the State and the defense’s position(s), if any].
The second element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that the entry or alteration was
false.
The third element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the record, document or thing belonged to, or was
received or kept by, the government for information or record, or was required
by law to be kept by others for information of the government.[3] [Here,
the court should state to the jury the allegation(s) made by the State and the
defense’s position(s), if any].
“Government” includes any branch, subdivision or agency
of the government of the State or any locality within it.[4]
The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant acted knowingly.
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. "Knowingly," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms
have the same meaning.[5]
Knowledge is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen
and can only be determined by inferences from 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, members of the jury, that the
State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she engaged in a particular act. 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 his/her conduct,
and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all
of the surrounding circumstances.
If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of
these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not
guilty.
If you find, however, that the State has proven all of
these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must consider a fourth
element, namely whether the defendant’s purpose was to defraud or injure
anyone.[6]
For this element, the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted purposely.
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. That is, a person
acts purposely if he/she means to act in a certain way or to cause a certain 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. In other words, if he/she means to do it.[7]
Purpose is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen
and can only be determined by inferences drawn 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, members
of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said he/she had a certain state of
mind when he/she engaged in a particular
act. 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 his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all
of the surrounding circumstances.
As to this element, the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant’s purpose was to defraud or injure anyone.
Here, the State alleges that the defendant’s purpose was [Here, the court should state to the jury
the allegation(s) made by the State and the defense’s position(s), if any].
If you find that the State has proven all four elements
beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of
tampering with public records or information with purpose to defraud or injure
anyone. If you find that the State has failed to prove the fourth element beyond
a reasonable doubt, but has proven the first three elements beyond a reasonable
doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of the offense of tampering with
public records or information.
[2] N.J.S.A.
2C:28-7b. This is the grading portion of the statute which makes the offense a
third degree crime as opposed to a disorderly persons offense. This part of the
statute should be charged to the jury only after a finding of guilt as to
subsection (a)(1).
[3] The
question of who receives, keeps or maintains the item, to whom it belongs, and
for what purpose should be provided for by statute, ordinance, rule, regulation
or otherwise. The trial court might wish to refer to or quote the appropriate
provision, if it is in issue.