The
first element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly
pointed or displayed a firearm at or in the
direction of a law enforcement officer. A firearm
is defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine
gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun,
device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from
which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable
ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas,
vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a
cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive
or the igniting of flammable or explosive
substances.
A law
enforcement officer is a person whose public duties
include the power to act as an officer for the
detection, apprehension, arrest and conviction of
offenders against the laws of this State.
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 if
(he/she) is aware of a high probability of their
existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to
the result of (his/her) conduct if (he/she) is aware
that it is practically certain that (his/her)
conduct will cause such a result.
Knowledge
is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and
that can be determined only 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 that the State produce witnesses to
testify that an accused said that (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 the defendant’s acts and conduct, from all that
(he/she) said and did at the particular time and
place, and from all surrounding circumstances.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that the
person was a law enforcement officer.
As I
instructed you earlier, a person acts knowingly with
respect to the nature of the attendant circumstances
if (he/she) is aware that such circumstances exist
or if (he/she) is aware of a high probability of
their existence.
The third
element that the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to
the value of human life.
The
phrase “under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life” does not
focus on the defendant’s state of mind but rather on
the circumstances under which you find that the
defendant acted.
The State
must prove that the defendant acted in a way that
showed that (he/she) was indifferent to whether the
victim or another lived or died, that is, that the
defendant acted in a way that showed that (he/she)
did not care that someone might be killed. Put
another way, the State must prove that the
defendant’s conduct indicated that life does not
matter and constituted a pronounced, unusual or
violent failure to accord any importance or value to
human life.
If you
find that the State has proved each and every
element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt,
then you must find the defendant guilty of
aggravated assault. If, however, you find that the
State has failed to prove any element of this
offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must
find the defendant not guilty.
This
statute took effect on April 20, 1999.
The
statutory definition of firearm also
includes items such as air guns and spring
guns. Should the case involve one of these
items, the jury should be instructed on the
full definition of firearm contained in
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19c.
State
v. Farrell, 250 N.J. Super. 386,
390-391 (App. Div. 1991).
