Revised 12/3/01
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -
UPON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
(PHYSICAL MENACE)
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1b(6))
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 by physical
menace to put . . . (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 . . . in fear
of imminent serious bodily injury.
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 by physical menace to put (insert name of
victim) in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
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
4b. 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 by physical menace to put
(insert name of victim) in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury.
Serious bodily
injury means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk
of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement,
or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ.
Imminent means
likely to happen without delay.
Physical
menace means a threatening of harm by physical conduct, and
not merely by words.
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.
Purpose is a
condition 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 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.
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.
I have already
instructed you on the meaning of a purposeful state of mind.
That definition also applies to this element.
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.
Like purpose,
knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and
that can often be determined only from inferences from
conduct, words or acts.
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).
Cf. the Model Charge
for terroristic threats (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b).
