Revised
04/19/04
[RECKLESSLY] ENDANGERING ANOTHER PERSON
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-2b(2))
The
defendant is charged with the crime of
Endangering Another Person.
(Read appropriate count of the
indictment)
The law upon which this charge is based
reads as follows:
A person commits a crime...if he... [p]urposely
or knowingly offers, gives or entices any
person to take or accept any treat, candy,
gift, food, drink or other substance that is
intended to be consumed which is poisonous,
intoxicating, anesthetizing, tranquilizing,
disorienting, deleterious or harmful to the
health or welfare of such person, without
the knowledge of the other person as to the
identity and effect of the substance....
In order for you to
find the defendant guilty of this offense,
the State must prove the following elements
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That defendant offered, gave or enticed
(insert name of victim) to take or
accept any treat, candy, gift, food, drink
or other substance that was intended to be
consumed which is poisonous, intoxicating,
anesthetizing, tranquilizing, disorienting,
deleterious or harmful to the health or
welfare of (insert name of victim);
2.
That defendant did so without (the victim's)
knowing the identity and effect of the
substance; and
3.
That defendant did this purposely or
knowingly.
Some of the words I have used require
definition. To "entice" means to convince
by presenting temptation or by exciting
desire. "Poisonous" means having the effect
of a substance that, through its chemical
action, usually kills, injures or impairs
anyone who ingests it. To "intoxicate"
means to make drunk or inebriate. To
"anesthetize" is to render insensible. To
"tranquilize", as used here, is to render
calm and peaceful by the use of substances.
To "disorient" is to confuse. "Deleterious"
means having the tendency to injure or harm.
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.
Purpose and knowledge 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 or knowledge 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.
If
you find that the State has proven every
element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you
must find defendant guilty. If, however,
the State has failed to prove any element
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must
find defendant not guilty.
[CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE]
If,
and only if, you find the defendant guilty
of the crime charged beyond a reasonable
doubt, you must proceed to determine whether
the State has also proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the crime of endangering another
person with the purpose to commit or
facilitate the commission of the crime of
__________________, the crime specifically
alleged by the State.
You may not consider here any purpose to
commit or facilitate the commission of any
other criminal offense but
.
[Define the crime alleged and its elements].
Earlier, I defined
purpose for you, and that definition applies
here, as well. In considering whether the
State has proven the specific purpose
charged, you may weigh any reasonable
inferences that may arise from all that was
said or done and all of the surrounding
circumstances of this case. To facilitate
the commission of a crime is to make it
easier. The State need not prove that
defendant accomplished the unlawful purpose
charged by actually committing the crime of
, if you are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that he/she acted with the
purpose to commit or facilitate a (name of
crime).
So, if, and only if, you find the defendant
guilty of endangering another person, beyond
a reasonable doubt, then your verdict must
also specify whether you find that the State
has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant committed the crime of endangering
another person with the purpose to commit or
facilitate the commission of the crime of
While N.J.S.A. 2C:12-2 is
entitled "Recklessly Endangering
Another Person," the body of the
statute does not refer to reckless
conduct but only to purpose and
knowledge. The court and counsel
should obviously avoid any reference
to recklessness before the jury.
