Revised 12/3/01
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -
UPON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
(ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE OR
PURPOSELY, KNOWINGLY OR
RECKLESSLY CAUSING
BODILY INJURY)
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)
Count
of this indictment charges the defendant
with aggravated assault.
(Read appropriate count of
indictment).
The defendant is
accused of violating a law that provides in pertinent part:
A person is guilty of
aggravated assault if (he/she) . . . (a)ttempts to cause or
purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to .
. . (a)ny law enforcement officer acting in the performance
of (his/her) duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence
of (his/her) authority or because of (his/her) status as a
law enforcement officer.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this
offense, the State must prove each of the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. that the defendant purposely
attempted to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly
caused bodily injury (insert name of victim);
2.
that (insert name of victim) was a
law-enforcement officer; and
3a. that the defendant knew that
(insert name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer
acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or while in
uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority;
or
3b. that the defendant knew that
(insert name of victim) was a law-enforcement officer
and purposely committed the act against (him/her) because of
(his/her) status as a law-enforcement officer.
The first element
that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that
the defendant purposely attempted to cause or purposely,
knowingly or recklessly caused bodily injury to (insert
name of victim).
(If appropriate, use the
model charge on attempt).
Bodily injury
means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical
condition.
A person acts
purposely with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or
a result thereof if it is a person's 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 a person is aware of the existence of such
circumstances or a person believes or hopes that they exist.
One can be deemed to be acting purposely if one acts with
design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one
really means to do what (he/she) does.
A person acts
knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or
the attendant circumstances if a person is aware that
(his/her) conduct is of that nature, or that such
circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high
probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with
respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if a person is
aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct
will cause such a result. One is said to act knowingly if
one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if
(he/she) comprehends (his/her) acts.
A person acts
recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense,
such as the infliction of serious bodily injury, if (he/she)
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that the material element exists or will result from
(his/her) conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and
degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the
actor's conduct and the circumstances known to the actor,
its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard
of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the
actor's situation. One is said to act recklessly if one acts
with recklessness, with scorn for the consequences,
heedlessly or in a foolhardy manner.
Purpose, knowledge and recklessness are
conditions of the mind that cannot be seen and that can
often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words
or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a
witness to testify that the defendant stated that (he/she)
acted with a particular state of mind. It is within your
power to find that proof of purpose, knowledge or
recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences that may arise from the nature of the acts and
circumstances surrounding the conduct in question.
For you to find
that the defendant caused bodily injury to (insert name
of victim), the State must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that (he/she) would not have been injured but for the
defendant’s conduct.
The second
element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
is that (insert name of victim) was a law-enforcement
officer.
A law-enforcement
officer is any person who is employed as a permanent
full-time member of any State, county or municipal
law-enforcement agency, department or division of those
governments and who is statutorily empowered to act for the
detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention or
rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal laws of
this state.
The third element that the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt is:
a. that the
defendant knew that (insert name of victim) was a
law-enforcement officer acting in the performance of
(his/her) duties or while in uniform or exhibiting evidence
of (his/her) authority; or
b. that the
defendant knew that (insert name of victim) was a
law-enforcement officer and purposely committed the act
against (him/her) because of (his/her) status as a
law-enforcement officer.
Earlier, I defined for you the relevant states
of mind and those definitions apply with equal force to this
element.
If you find that the State has proven every
element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty. If, however, the State has failed to prove
any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find
(him/her) not guilty.
(Where appropriate charge
simple assault as a lesser offense.)
This charge is drafted for
the most common situation, where a defendant is
charged with aggravated assault upon a law
enforcement officer under N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(5)(a). Other sections of the statute apply,
with differing language, to aggravated assault upon
paid and volunteer firemen; emergency first-aid and
medical personnel; school board members, school
administrators, teachers and other employees of a
school board; employees of the Division of Youth and
Family Services; the judiciary; and bus drivers and
railroad employees. N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(b)
to (g). As always, the Model Charge must be adapted
to fit the facts of each case.
State v. Green, 318
N.J. Super. 361, 376 (App. Div. 1999), aff’d
o.b., 163 N.J. 140 (2000) (the defendant
must know that the victim is a law-enforcement
officer).
If transferred intent is an
issue, the charge should be modified accordingly.
State in the Interest of S.B., 333 N.J. Super.
236, 243 (App. Div. 2000).
N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3a(1).
If causation is contested, a fuller explanation of
causation may be needed. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3.
