Threaten police dog 2C:29-3.1(c) model jury charge NJ

threaten police dog 2C:29-3.1(c) model jury charge THREATENING TO KILL, MAIM OR INFLICT HARM UPON AN ANIMAL USED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG N.J.S.A.2C:29-3.1(c)model jury charge Count _____ of this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of threatening to kill, maim or inflict harm upon an animal owned or used by a law enforcement agency or an animal who is a search and rescue dog. (READ INDICTMENT) The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that: Any person who purposely threatens to kill, maim or otherwise inflict harm upon a dog, horse or other animal owned or used by a law enforcement agency or a search and rescue dog, under circumstances reasonably causing the person to whom the threat is made to believe that it is likely to be carried out . . . is guilty of a crime. In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.that the defendant purposely threatened to kill, maim or otherwise inflict harm upon an animal; 2.that the dog, horse or other animal was (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE)owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog; 3.that the defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal was (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE) owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog; and 4.that the threat was made under circumstances causing the person to whom the threat was made to reasonably believe that the threat would likely be carried out. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely threatened to kill, maim, or otherwise inflict harm upon a dog, horse or other animal. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereof if it ishis/herconscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances ifhe/shehopes that they exist.A person acts purposely ifhe/sheacts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, ifhe/shemeans to do whathe/shedoes. Purpose 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 a defendant said thathe/shehad a certain state of mind whenhe/sheengaged 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 defendants acts and conduct, from all thathe/shesaid 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 dog, horse or other animal was (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE)owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog.(CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE).A law enforcement agency is a department, division, bureau, commission, board or other authority of the State or of any political subdivision thereof which employs law enforcement officers.[1]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.[2]The term search and rescue dog means any dog trained or being trained for the purpose of search and rescue that is owned by an independent handler or member of a search and rescue team, and used in conjunction with local law enforcement or emergency services organizations for the purpose of locating missing persons or evidence of arson.[3] The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal was (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE)owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog. A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or the attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware thathis/herconduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or ifhe/sheis aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to the result ofhis/herconduct ifhe/sheis aware that it is practically certain thathis/herconduct will cause such a result.Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning. Like purpose, knowledge is a condition of the mindthat 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 a defendant said thathe/shehad a certain state of mind whenhe/sheengaged 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 defendants acts and conduct, from all thathe/shesaid and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances. The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat was made under circumstances causing the person to whom the threat was made to reasonably believe that the threat would likely be carried out.[4] If you find that the State has proven each element of this 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. [1]N.J.S.A.2C:25-19b. [2]N.J.S.A.2C:25-19c [3]N.J.S.A.2C:29-3.1. [4]Although no caselaw addresses the standard in connection with this statute, there is similarly-worded language contained in the Terroristic Threats (Threat to Kill) statute,N.J.S.A.2C:12-3(b)).The language in that statute has been interpreted to mean that the threat must be such that it would reasonably convey a fear to an ordinary person.

THEFT OF SERVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8b) model jury charge NJ

THEFT OF SERVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8b) model jury charge THEFT OF SERVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8b)model jury charge The defendant is charged with theft of services in violation ofN.J.S.A. 2C:20-8b. That section of our statute reads in pertinent part: A person commits theft if, having control over the disposition of services of another, to which he is not entitled, he knowingly diverts such services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled hereto. The State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following elements of the crime: (1)that defendant had control over the disposition of the services; (2)that defendant was not entitled to the services (nor was the recipient if other than defendant); (3)that defendant diverted services of another to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of another; and (4)that defendant did so knowingly. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant had control over the disposition of the services. Services include labor, professional service, transportation, telephone (including using, selling, or possessing a computer to deprive a telephone company of its charges), or other public service, accommodations in hotels, restaurants or elsewhere, entertainment, admission to exhibitions, use of vehicles or other movable property. The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was not entitled to the services (nor was the recipient of the services, if other than the defendant). The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant diverted services of another to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of another. The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant did so knowingly. 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. Knowledge is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined 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, members of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said 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 inferences[1]which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. If the defendant knowingly diverted the services in question it does not matter whether he/she diverted them to his/her own benefit or to the benefit of another person who was not entitled to the services. If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If, however, you find that the State has proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of theft of services. (If affirmative defense of Claim of Right is raised, charge here. (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(c)) (If applicable, charge here on Gradation of Theft Offenses. (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(b)) [1]SeeN.J.S.A. 2C:20-8l for inferences that may be applicable. [CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE] An inference is a deduction of fact that may be drawn logically and reasonably from another fact or group or facts established by the evidence. Whether or not an inference should be drawn is for you to decide using your own common sense, knowledge and everyday experience. Ask yourselves is it probable, logical and reasonable. However, you are never required or compelled to draw an inference. You alone decide whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence support an inference and you are always free to draw or not to draw an inference. If you draw an inference, you should weigh it in connection with all the other evidence in the case keeping in mind that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

THEFT OF SERVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:20‑8a) model jury charge NJ

THEFT OF SERVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:20‑8a) model jury charge THEFT OF SERVICES(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8a)model jury charge The defendant is charged with committing the offense of theft of services. That section of our statute reads in pertinent part: A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, or by false token, slug, or other means, including but not limited to mechanical or electronic devices or through fraudulent statements, to avoid payment for the service. The State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following elements of the crime: (1)that defendant purposely obtained a service; (2)that defendant knew the services were available only for compensation; (3)that defendant obtained the services by deception (or threat, or by a falsetoken, etc.); (4)that defendants purpose was to avoid payment. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely obtained a service. Obtain means to secure the performance of the service, whether for ones own benefit or for the benefit of another. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her 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 he/she is aware of the existenceof such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist. The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew the services were available only for compensation. 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 which cannot be seen and can only be determined 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, members of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said 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 inferences which may arise from the nature of his/her acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. Services include labor, professional service, transportation, telephone (including using, selling, or possessing a computer to deprive a telephone company of its charges), or other public service, accommodation in hotels, restaurants or elsewhere, entertainment, admissions to exhibitions and use of vehicles or other movable property. The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant obtained the services by deception. A person deceives if he/she purposely creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind; but deception as to a persons intention to perform a promise shall not be inferred from the fact alone that he/she did not subsequently perform the promise.[1]A person also deceives when he/she prevents another from acquiring information which would affect ( his/her ) judgment of a transaction; or fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced, or which the deceiver knows tobe influencing another to whom he/she stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship.[2] Threat means a communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any person or on property.[3] By a false token means a false document or sign of the existence of a fact, in general, used for the purposes of fraud. It is a device used to obtain money by false pretenses.[4]For example, the use of a slug is use by a false token. A slug is an object or article which by virtue of its size, shape, or any other quality is capable of being inserted or deposited in a coin, currency, or credit card activated machine as an improper substitute for money.[5] The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendants purpose was to avoid payment. [CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE] Where compensation for service is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of such service, as, for example, in hotels or restaurants, where a person absconds without payment or offer to pay, you may infer that absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to an inference that service was obtained by deception as to intention to pay.[6] An inference is a deduction of fact that may be drawn logically and reasonably from another fact or group or facts established by the evidence. Whether or not an inference should be drawn is for you to decide using your own common sense, knowledge and everyday experience. Ask yourselves is it probable, logical and reasonable. However, you are never required or compelled to draw an inference. You alone decide whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence support an inference and you are always free to draw or not to draw an inference. If you draw an inference, you should weigh it in connection with all the other evidence in the case keeping in mind that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.[7] [CHARGE IN ALL CASES] In conclusion: If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if the State has proven each element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of theft services. (If affirmative defense of claim of right is raised, charge here. (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(c)) (If applicable, charge here on Gradation of Theft Offenses. (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(b)) [1]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4a. [2]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4b and c. [3]Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. [4]Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed. [5]N.J.S.A. 2C:21-18. [6]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8a. [7]SeeN.J.S.A. 2C:20-8l for other inferences that may be applicable.

THEFT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY2C:20-3a) model jury charge NJ

THEFT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY2C:20-3a) model jury charge THEFT OF MOVABLE PROPERTY(N.J.S.A.2C:20-3a)model jury charge[Count ____ of T]he Indictment charges defendant with theft by unlawful taking or disposition of movable property.The indictment reads as follows:[read the appropriate portion of the indictment]. The statute upon which the indictment is based provides in pertinent part that: A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof. The State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)that defendant knowingly took or unlawfully exercised control over movable property; (2)that the movable property was property of another; (3)that defendants purpose was to deprive the other person of the movable property. The first element which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly took or exercised unlawful control over movable property.Property means anything of value, including [select appropriate phrases: tangible and intangible personal property, trade secrets, contract rights, choses in action and other interests in or claims to wealth, admission or transportation tickets, captured or domestic animals, food and drink, electric, gas, steam or other power, financial instruments, information, data, and computer software, in either human readable or computer readable form, copies or originals.[1]] Movable property means property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, or documents, although the rights represented thereby have no physical location.[2]For comparison purposes, immovable property is all other property.[3] Defendant must knowingly take or exercise unlawful control over movable property.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 he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.Knowingly is a state of mind and cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from conduct, words or acts.Therefore, it is not necessary that witnesses be produced by the State to testify that a defendant said that he/she knowingly did something. his/her knowledge may be gathered from his/her acts and his/her conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place and from all the surrounding circumstances reflected in the testimony [and evidence adduced at trial]. In this case, the State alleges that the movable property taken, or over which control was unlawfully exercised, is the following:[describe property listed in the indictment].[Read if appropriate:It should be noted that the definition of movable property is broad, including the kind of property which has no real location.[4]]The State need not prove that the property was carried out of the place in which it was kept, but only that it was moved or taken from its original location or that defendant exercised unlawful control over it, whether or not he/she was able to actually move or remove the property. [Read the Supplemental Charge on Theft if appropriate] The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the movable property is property of another.[Choose appropriate language:Property of another includes property in which any person other than the defendant has an interest which the defendant is not privileged to infringe, regardless of the fact that the defendant also has an interest in the property and regardless of the fact that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband.[5]Property in the possession of the actor shall not be deemed property of another who has only a security interest therein, even if legal title is in the creditor pursuant to a conditional sales contract or other security agreement.[6]]The term property of another is broadly defined so as to include services and intangibles, anything of value.[7]Anything of value is defined as any direct or indirect gain or advantage to any person.[8] The third element which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendants purpose was to deprive the other person of the movable property.For the purpose of this statute, the term deprive specifically means:(1) to withhold or cause to be withheld property of another permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a substantial portion of its economic value, or with purpose to restore only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (2) to dispose or cause disposal of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her 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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.A person acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or if he/she means to do what he/she does. Purpose 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 defendants acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances. If you find that the State has proven all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty.If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty. Since the value of the movable property [or specific type of property] determines the degree or severity of the crime, the State must prove its value beyond a reasonable doubt [or the movable property taken beyond a reasonable doubt].If you find defendant guilty, then you must indicate the value of the property (or whether the movable property is a specifically enumerated item). [Read to the jury the gradation theft offenses charge,N.J.S.A.2C:20-2b]. [1]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1g. [2]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1e. [3]Ibid. [4]For example, stock certificates. [5]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1h. [6]Ibid. [7]State v. Dixon, 114N.J.111 (1989). [8]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1n. FOR POTENTIAL CLIENTS TO CONTACT US DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS, PLEASE FILL OUT THE FORM. Name: Cell Phone: E-Mail Address If You Do Not Include a Complete E-Mail Address, Network will not Forward Your Contact Form to the Law Office. Details of the Case Agree By typing " agree" into the box you are confirming that you wish to send your information to the Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen kenv Past NJ Bar Association Municipal Court award winner Client Testimonials Homepage Resume

THEFT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY 2C:20-3b) model jury charge NJ

THEFT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY 2C:20-3b) model jury charge THEFT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3b)model jury charge [Count _____ of the Indictment charges defendant with theft by unlawful taking or disposition of immovable property.The indictment reads as follows: [Read the appropriate portion of the indictment]. The statute upon which the indictment is based provides in pertinent part that: A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers any interest in immovable property of another with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto. In order to obtain a conviction, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)that defendant unlawfully transferred any interest in immovable property; (2)that defendant knew that the transfer was unlawful; (3)that defendant knew the immovable property was property of another; (4)that defendants purpose was to benefithimself/herselfor another not entitled thereto. The first element which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant unlawfully transferred any interest in immovable property.Property means anything of value, including [select appropriate phrases] real estate, tangible and intangible personal property, trade secrets, contract rights, choses in action and other interests in or claims to wealth, admission or transportation tickets, captured or domestic animals, food and drink, electric, gas, steam or other power, financial instruments, information, data, and computer software, in either human readable or computer readable form, copies or originals.[1] In order for me to explain to you what immovable property is, I must first define what movable property is.Movable property means property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, and documents, although the rights represented thereby have no physical location.[2]Immovable property is all other property.[3] [Charge where appropriate] Additionally, in order to distinguish between movable and immovable property, theft under this section of the statute is limited to an unlawful transfer of interest in such immovable property. The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knew that the transfer was unlawful.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 he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.Knowingly is a state of mind and cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from conduct, words or acts.Therefore, it is not necessary that witnesses be produced by the State to testify that a defendant said that he/she knowingly did something. his/her knowledge may be gathered from his/her acts and his/her conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place and from all the surrounding circumstances reflected in the testimony [and evidence adduced at trial]. In this case, the State alleges that the interest transferred in immovable property is as follows [describe interest as listed in the indictment and developed at the trial].[Read if appropriate:Mere use of land of another without permission, even illegal, destructive use, does not deprive the owner of the property and is not a crime under this section of the Code of Criminal Justice.][4] The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knew that the immovable property was property of another.Property of another includes property in which any person other than the actor has an interest which the actor is not privileged to infringe, regardless of the fact that the actor also has an interest in the property and regardless of the fact that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband.[5]Property in the possession of the actor shall not be deemed property of another who has only a security interest therein, even if legal title is in the creditor pursuant to a conditional sales contact or other security agreement.[6]The terms property and property of another are broadly defined so as to include services and intangibles, anything of value.[7]Anything of value is defined as any direct or indirect gain or advantage to any person.[8] The fourth element which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendants purpose in his/her unlawful transfer was to benefithimself/herselfor another not entitled thereto. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her 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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.A person acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or if he/she means to do what he/she does. Purpose 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 defendants acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances. If you find that the State has proven all four elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty.If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty. Since the value of the immovable property [or specific type of property] determines the degree or severity of the crime, the State must prove its value beyond a reasonable doubt [or the immovable property taken beyond a reasonable doubt].If you find defendant guilty, then you must indicate the value of the property (or whether the movable property is a specifically enumerated item).[Read to the jury the Gradation of Theft Offenses charge,N.J.S.A.2C:20-2b]. [1]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1g. [2]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1e. [3]Ibid. [4]State v. Garofola, 252N.J. Super.356 (Law Div. 1988). [5]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1h. [6]Ibid. [7]State v. Dixon, 114N.J.111 (1989). [8]N.J.S.A.2C:20-1n.

THEFT FROM THE PERSON 2C:20-2b(2)(d) model jury charge NJ

THEFT FROM THE PERSON 2C:20-2b(2)(d) model jury charge THEFT FROM THE PERSON N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)(d)model jury charge Count _____ of the indictment charges defendant with theft from the person. (READ INDICTMENT) The statute upon which this count of the indictment is based states in pertinent part: A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises control over movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof. In order for you to find defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.That the defendant knowingly took or unlawfully exercised control over movable property; 2.That the movable property was property of another; 3.That the movable property was taken from the person of another; and 4.That defendants purpose was to deprive the other person of the movable property. The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly took or exercised unlawful control over movable property.Movable property means property the location of which can be changed, including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, or documents, although the rights represented thereby have no physical location. 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 he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.Knowingly, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning. In this case, the State alleges that the movable property taken or over which control was unlawfully exercised was (describe property).The State need not prove that the property was carried out of the place in which it was kept, but only that it was moved or taken from its original location or that defendant exercised unlawful control over it.[1] Knowledge is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined 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 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 his/her acts and his/her conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the movable property is property of another.Property of another includes [choose appropriate]property in which any person other than the actor has an interest which the actor is not privileged to infringe, regardless of the fact that the other person might be precluded from civil recovery because the property was used in an unlawful transaction or was subject to forfeiture as contraband.Property in possession of the actor shall not be deemed property of another who has only a security interest therein, even if legal title is in the creditor pursuant to a conditional sales contract or other security agreement.[2] The term property of another is broadly defined so as to include services and intangibles, anything of value.[3]Anything of value is defined as any direct or indirect gain or advantage to any person.[4] The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the property was taken from the person of another.That is, the State must prove that at the time of the theft, the property stolen was within the immediate custody and control of another. The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendants purpose was to deprive the other person of the movable property.Deprive means to withhold or cause to be withheld property of another permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a substantial portion of its economic value or with purpose to restore only upon payment of reward or other compensation or to dispose or cause disposal of the property so as to make it unlikely that the owner will recover it. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her 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 the individual is aware of the existence of such circumstances or the individual believes or hopes that they exist.With purpose, designed, with design or equivalent terms have the same meaning. Purpose is a condition of the mind.A condition of the mind cannot be seen.It can only be determined by inference from defendants 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 did a particular thing.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 his/her acts and conduct and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence. If you find that the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of theft from the person.If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty. [1]State v. Link, 197N.J. Super. 615, 619 (App. Div.),certif. denied, 101N.J. 234 (1985). [2]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1h. [3]State v. Dixon, 114N.J. 111 (1989). [4]N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1n.

THEFT BY FAILURE 2C:20-9 model jury charge NJ

THEFT BY FAILURE 2C:20-9 model jury charge THEFT BY FAILURE TO MAKE REQUIRED DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY RECEIVED (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-9)model jury charge The indictment charges the defendant with the offense of theft by failure to make required disposition of property received.That section of our statute reads in pertinent part: A person who purposely obtains or retains property upon agreement or subject to a known legal obligation to make specified payments or other disposition whether from such property or its proceeds or from his own property to be reserved in equivalent amount, is guilty of theft if he deals with the property obtained as his own and fails to make the required payment or disposition. In order to find the defendant guilty of this theft offense, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)That the defendant purposely obtained or retained the property; (2)That the defendant did so upon agreement, or subject to legal obligation; (3)That this agreement or legal obligation required the defendant to make specified payment or other disposition from the property itself or its proceeds, or from his/her own property to be reserved in equivalent amount; (4)That this legal obligation was known to the defendant; (5)That the defendant purposely dealt with the property as if it were his/her own; and (6)That the defendant purposely failed to make the required payment or disposition. (Charge the following only if applicable to the facts of the case) Any payment made with a subsequently dishonored negotiable instrument, for example, a bad check, shall constitute evidence of the actors failure to make the required payment or disposition.You may infer therefrom that the actor did not intend to make the required payment or other disposition. OR If you find that the defendant is an officer or employee of the government or of any financial institution then you may infer; (a)That he/she had knowledge of his/her legal obligation to make the specified payment or other disposition.And (b)If you find that he/she failed to pay or account upon lawful demand or if an audit revealed a shortage or falsification of accounts then you may infer that he/she dealt with the property as his/her own. However, you are never required or compelled to draw an inference.It is your exclusive province to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence support any inferences and you are always free to accept or reject them if you wish. CONTINUE WITH THE CHARGE With respect to some of the words used in defining the elements, I instruct you as follows: The word obtain means to bring about a transfer or purported transfer of a legal interest in the property, either to the defendanthimself/herselfor another person. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her 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 the person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. With purpose, Designed, With Design, or equivalent terms have the same meaning. 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 he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result, knowing, With knowledge or equivalent terms have the same meaning. The word Property is defined as anything of value including tangible or intangible personal property. I further instruct you that the foregoing applies even though it may be impossible to identify particular property as belonging to the victim at the time the defendant allegedly failed to make the required payment or disposition because the victims property may have been mixed with or joined with other property. If after a review of all the evidence you find that the State has failed to prove any one of the elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the charge. If you find that the State has proved all of the elements above beyond a reasonable doubt.Then you must find the defendant guilty of the charge.