USE OF FORCE UPON AN INTRUDER model jury charge 2c:3-4

JUSTIFICATIONUSE OF FORCE UPON AN INTRUDER model jury charge(N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4c) The indictment charges that the defendant has committed the crime of . The defendant contends that his/her use of force (or deadly force) upon was justifiable under the circumstances for his/her self-protection (or the protection of others). Under certain conditions, the law allows a person to use force upon another, and the use of such force does not constitute a criminal offense. The law exonerates a defendant who uses force (or deadly force) upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling when the defendant reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself or other person(s) in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion. Keep in mind that the State has the burden to prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant against another person was not justified.[1] If the State fails to sustain this burden, the defendant must be found not guilty of the crime(s) charged. Conversely, this defense should be rejected if the State disproves, beyond a reasonable doubt, any of the elements or conditions which constitute justification. In this case (recite factual contentions which raise the issue of justification). For the force used by the defendant against another to be justified, the following two conditions must exist: 1. The other person (victim) was an intruder who was unlawfully in a dwelling. An intruder is one who is unlawfully in the dwelling--that is, he/she was not licensed or privileged to be in the dwelling. The term dwelling means any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is used as a persons home or place of lodging.[2] 2. The defendant reasonably believed that force (deadly force) was immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself or other person(s) in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion. A reasonable belief exists when a defendant, to protect himself/herself or a third person, was in his/her own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon, and the encounter between the defendant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the defendant to act instantly, and the defendant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the defendant or others in the dwelling, or the defendant demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so. I instruct you that a reasonable belief is different than an honest belief. What is reasonable is not measured by what a defendant found reasonable but rather by what a jury finds reasonable. Thus, the reasonableness of defendants belief is based on an objective standard--that is, by how an ordinary reasonable person with a detached viewpoint would view it. A subjective belief, based on the viewpoint of the defendant, is immaterial. If the defendant did employ protective force, he/she has the right to estimate the necessity of using force without retreating, surrendering position, withdrawing or doing any other act which he/she has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. The State has a burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the force used by the defendant against another person was not justified, that is, the State has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of the elements or conditions of justification do not exist. If you find that the State has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no justification and you will consider whether the State has otherwise sustained its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every element of the offense of . If the State has not met its burden in this regard on the issue of justification, the defendant must be found not guilty as to the charge of .[3] [1] Although the burden of disproving this defense is upon the State, there must be enough evidence to support this charge--the record must provide a rational basis upon which the jury could find that the defendant acted justifiably. See State v. Martinez, 229 N.J. Super. 593 (App. Div. 1989). [2] A dwelling includes a porch or other similar appurtenance. State v. Martinez, 229 N.J. Super. 583, 604 (App. Div. 1989). [3] Note: If the State has sustained its burden of proof, the jury may, if the facts so warrant, deal with the issue of imperfect self-defense. See State v. Bowens (Leon), 108 N.J. 622, 627-630 (1987).

 

 

USE OF FORCE IN PROTECTION OF OTHERS model jury charge 2c:3-5

JUSTIFICATION ‑ USE OF FORCE

IN PROTECTION OF OTHERS model jury charge(N.J.S.A. 2C:3‑5)

The defendant contends he/she should be found not guilty because he/she acted in defense of a third person. Our statute N.J.S.A. 2C:3‑5 insofar as pertinent to this matter provides:

... the use of force upon or toward that person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) The actor would be justified ... in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect and

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

You must first determine whether the force used by (defendant) to protect (name), the third person, would have been justified if (defendant) had used such force to protect himself/herself under the guidelines of the law pertaining to self‑defense that I have just given you.

Second, you must determine whether (defendant) reasonably believed that person whom he/she sought to protect would have been justified in using such force in self‑defense. In applying this test you are instructed to disregard any finding that the person in whose behalf (defendant) intervened was in fact the aggressor or that no defensive measures on his/her behalf were actually necessary, but you may consider everything defendant knew when he/she acted, including these same factors if you find that he/she knew them.

Finally, you must determine whether (defendant) reasonably believed these actions were necessary to protect that person.

In making these determinations, keep in mind the following:

When using deadly force to protect a third person, the defendant is not obligated to retreat or to surrender possession of a thing to one claiming a right thereto or to comply with any demands being made of him/her unless he/she knows that by doing so it would secure the complete safety of the third person.

But, if the third person, whom the actor is seeking to protect is under a duty to retreat, then the defendant is obligated to try to cause (him/her) to do so before using force in (his/her) protection if the defendant knows that he/she can obtain complete safety in that way.

Finally, neither the defendant nor the person whom he/she seeks to protect is required to retreat when in the third persons dwelling to any greater extent than in his/her own.

Always remember -- the State has the burden of disproving the defense of protection of a third person beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the State has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If, on the other hand, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have the right to resort to force or deadly force to protect a third person, then this particular defense fails.

USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT model jury charge 2C:3-7a

USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT model jury charge(N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7a)

The defendant contends that he/she is not guilty of the crime of because the force he/she used was for the purpose of effecting an arrest.

Our statute N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7a provides in pertinent part:

.....the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

In determining whether the defendants (name) actions in this case meet the requirements of the statute, you must decide the following issues:

(1) Was defendant making or assisting in making an arrest when he/she used force against the person of another?

(2) Did the defendant (name) reasonably believe that the force he/she used in making or assisting in making the arrest was immediately necessary to make the arrest?

(3) Was the arrest lawful?

To answer these questions you must determine from the evidence of this case whether from the totality of the circumstances the defendants beliefs were reasonable. A reasonable belief is one which a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence and prudence in the position of the defendant would have under the circumstances existing at the time of the alleged offense. Thus, a reasonable belief is one which the ordinary person would have when confronted with the same circumstances with which the defendant was faced in this case. The use of force is not justified by reason of this defense unless a reasonable person would have reacted with the same amount or level of force as used by the defendant herein, operating under the belief that the force was immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest. If a defendants belief is reasonable, he/she cannot be found to have acted in a reckless or criminally negligent manner.

The fact that defendants belief may have been erroneous does not deprive the defendant of his/her privilege to use force to effect a lawful arrest if you find that a reasonable person would have held the same belief under the circumstances with which the defendant was faced at the time of his/her actions. Therefore, your determination of whether the defendant reasonably believed that the amount of force used was immediately necessary and not excessive under the circumstances must be made from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of his/her acts and not from your viewpoint as jurors now looking at his/her acts.

The statute requires that the force used was necessary to effect a lawful arrest. An arrest, as that term is used in criminal law, signifies the apprehension or detention of the person of another in order that he/she may be forthcoming to answer for an alleged or supposed crime. In order for the arrest to be lawful, there must exist within the arresting officers knowledge facts sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the person arrested had committed or was committing a criminal offense. In other words, there must at least be a well-grounded suspicion that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.

The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of justifiable conduct is untrue, and hence there must be an acquittal if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant did act justifiably within the definition of that defense as just instructed.

 

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