TAMPERING
WITH PUBLIC RECORDS OR INFORMATION
(MAKING, PRESENTING OR
FILING A FALSE
DOCUMENT, RECORD OR
THING)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:28‑7a(2)) 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 makes, presents, offers for filing, or uses any record, document
or thing knowing it to be false, and with purpose that it be taken as a genuine
part 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 falsely made,
presented, offered for filing, or used a record, document or thing;
(2) that the defendant knew the record,
document or thing to be false; and
(3) that the defendant acted with the purpose
that the item be taken as a genuine part of a record, document or thing that
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 falsely made,
presented, offered for filing, or used a record, document or thing.
The second element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew the record, document or thing to be
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. "Knowingly," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms
have the same meaning.[3]
Knowledge is a condition 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, 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.
The third element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose that the record,
document or thing be taken as a genuine part of one that 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.[4]
“Government” includes any branch, subdivision or agency
of the government of the State or any locality within it.[5]
Here, the State alleges that the defendant’s purpose was [Here, the court should state to the jury
the allegations made by the State and the defense’s position(s), if any].
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.[6]
Purpose is a condition 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, 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 these
three elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must consider a fourth
element, namely whether the defendant’s purpose was to defraud or injure
anyone.[7]
I have already defined “purpose” for you. It remains the
same.
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)(2).
[4] 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.
