TAMPERING WITH PUBLIC
RECORDS OR INFORMATION
(DESTRUCTION,
CONCEALMENT, REMOVAL OR MUTILATION)
(N.J.S.A. 2C:28‑7a(3)) 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 purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes, mutilates,
or otherwise impairs the verity or availability 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 destroyed, concealed,
removed, mutilated, or otherwise impaired the verity of any record, document or
thing;
(2) that said record, document or thing
belonged to, or was received or kept by, the government for information or
record, or required to be kept by others for information of the government;
(3) that the defendant acted purposely; and
(4) that the defendant’s act was unlawful.
The first element that the State
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant destroyed,
concealed, removed, mutilated, or otherwise impaired the verity of any record,
document or thing.
The second 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 required to be kept by others for information of the government.
“Government” includes any branch,
subdivision or agency of the government of the State or any locality within it.[3]
With regard to the third element, 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.[4]
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.
With regard to the fourth element,
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was
unlawful. Here, the State charges that the defendant . [Here, the court should describe the
unlawful conduct]. You must not consider your own notions of the
unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of the defendant, but rather you
must consider whether the State has proven the specific unlawful purpose
charged.
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 four elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must
consider a fifth element, namely whether the defendant’s purpose was to defraud
or injure anyone.[5]
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 five 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 fifth element beyond a reasonable doubt, but has proven the first
four 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).