New Jersey Criminal Assault Charges
SIMPLE ASSAULT
(Bodily Injury)(Lesser Included Offense)
(N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1a(1))
The law requires that the Court instruct
the jury with respect to possible (lesser) included offenses, even
if they are not contained in the indictment. Just because the Court
is instructing you concerning these offenses does not mean that the
Court has any opinion one way or another about whether the defendant
committed these, or any, offenses. You should consider these
offenses along with those for which the defendant is indicted.
However, you are not to render a verdict on these offenses or answer
the questions on the verdict sheet unless you find that the State
has failed to meet its burden with regard to the offense(s) in the
indictment.
Simple assault is
a
lesser-included offense to count ______ of this indictment. The
statute which defines simple assault provides that:
A person
commits a simple assault if he/she attempts to cause or purposely,
knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another.
In
order for you to convict the defendant of this offense, the State
must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(CHARGE AS
APPROPRIATE)
OPTION ONE
(Causing Bodily Injury)
1.
That the defendant did cause bodily injury to NAME OF
VICTIM; and
2. That the defendant acted purposely or knowingly or
recklessly in causing bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or
another).
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is
the defendant caused bodily injury to another.
Bodily
injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of the
physical condition.
The
second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
is the defendant acted purposely or knowingly or recklessly in
causing bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM or (Another).
A
person acts purposely with respect to causing bodily injury to
another if it is a person's conscious object to cause bodily injury
to another.
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 causing bodily injury 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 bodily injury. 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 causing bodily injury when a
person 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, foolhardily.
The nature of the purpose or knowledge or recklessness with which
the defendant acted toward the victim of the assault is a
question of fact for you the jury to decide. Purpose and knowledge
and recklessness are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and
can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. It
is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or witnesses who
could testify that the defendant stated, for example, that (his/her)
purpose was to cause bodily injury.
It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge
or recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by
inferences which may arise from the nature of the acts and the
surrounding circumstances.
If you find
that the State has proved each element of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If,
however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of
the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
OPTION TWO (ATTEMPT TO CAUSE BODILY INJURY):
1. That the defendant attempted to cause bodily injury to
NAME OF VICTIM (or another); and
2.
That the defendant acted purposely.
The
first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is
the defendant attempted to cause bodily injury to another.
Bodily
injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of the
physical condition.
The second element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is
the defendant purposely attempted to cause bodily injury to NAME
OF VICTIM (or another).
A
person acts purposely with respect to causing bodily injury if it is
a person's conscious object to cause bodily injury. 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.
The law provides that a person attempts to commit the crime of
simple assault if, acting purposefully, he/she:
(select appropriate section)
1. Engaged in conduct that would constitute the offense if
the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would
believe them to be;
(or)
2. Did (or omitted to do) anything with the purpose of
causing bodily injury to another without further conduct on his/her
part. This means that the defendant(s) did something designed to
cause bodily injury without having to take any further action.
(or)
3. Did (or omitted to do) anything that,
under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to
be, was an act (or omission) constituting a substantial step in a
course of conduct planned to culminate in his/her commission of the
crime.
The step taken
must be one that is strongly corroborative of the defendant’s
criminal purpose. The accused must be shown to have had a firmness
of criminal purpose in light of the step(s) he/she had already
taken. These preparatory steps must be substantial and not just very
remote preparatory acts.
If
you find that the State has proved each element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.
If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.
If
causation is an issue, the jury should be instructed on
causation. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3a(1) et. seq.
|
