ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1d model jury charge (first degree)

ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1dmodel jury charge(first degree) Count __ of the indictment charges the defendant with arson in violation of a statute which reads as follows: Any person who, directly or indirectly, pays or accepts or offers to pay or accept any form of consideration including, but not limited to, money or any other pecuniary benefit, regardless of whether any consideration is actually exchanged for the purpose of starting a fire or causing an explosion in violation of this section commits a crime. . . In order to find the defendant guilty of arson, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant, directly or indirectly, paid, accepted or offered to pay or accept any form of consideration, regardless of whether any consideration is actually exchanged; and (2) that the defendant paid, accepted or offered to pay or accept this consideration for the purpose of [starting a fire] [causing an explosion]. Consideration is something of value. In this case, the State alleges that the consideration was [describe the alleged consideration]. The first element that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the defendant, either directly or indirectly, [paid] [accepted][offered to pay or accept] any form of consideration1or inducement, including, but not limited to, money or any other pecuniary benefit. The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that when the defendant [paid] [accepted][offered to pay or accept] this money (or any other pecuniary or non- pecuniary benefit) it was for the purpose of [starting a fire] [causing an explosion] in violation of the arson statute. [CHARGE THIS SENTENCE IF APPLICABLE] (The [fire need not have been started] [explosion need not have been caused], as the law 1received by a promisor from a promisee. Blacks Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999). Consideration has been defined as something of value (such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise) Revised 3/24/03 Page 1 of 2 Arson N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1d (first degree) requires only that the State prove that [starting a fire] [causing an explosion] was the defendants purpose when [paying] [accepting] [offering to pay] [offering to accept] the consideration.) [CHARGE THE ELEMENTS OF N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1a OR b WHICH, UNDER THE FACTS, BRING THE DEFENDANTS PURPOSE TO COMMIT ARSON WITHIN VIOLATION OF ANY ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE SECTIONS.]2 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 existence of such circumstances or 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 that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendants conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such as a statement by the defendant that he/she had a particular purpose. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. In other words, the State must prove that when the defendant [paid] [accepted][offered to pay][offered to accept] money (or any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary benefit), it was his/her purpose or conscious object to start or cause a fire (or explosion). If the State has failed to prove any of the elements as I have described them to you beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of arson. If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of arson.3 2 3 See the aggravated arson and arson charges. If, under the facts of your case, arson, aggravated arson or failure to report a fire is a lesser included offense, adapt your charge accordingly. https://njlaws.com/arson1.html?id=5444&a=

ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1b model jury charge

ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1b model jury charge (third degree) Count __ of the indictment charges the defendant with arson in violation of a statute which reads in pertinent part as follows: A person is guilty of arson. . .if he purposely starts a fire or causes an explosion, whether on his own property or anothers: [READ ONLY THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS] (1) Thereby recklessly placing another person in danger of death or bodily injury; or (2) Thereby recklessly placing a building or structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; or (3) With the purpose of collecting insurance for the destruction or damage to such property; or (4) With the purpose of destroying or damaging a structure in order to exempt the structure, completely or partially, from the provisions of any State, county or local zoning, planning or building law, regulation, ordinance or enactment; or (5) Thereby recklessly placing a forest in danger of damage or destruction. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of arson, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant purposely [started a fire] [caused an explosion] on his/her own property or anothers; (2) that the act of [starting the fire] [causing the explosion] [SELECT APPROPRIATE ELEMENT OR ELEMENTS] (a) recklessly placed another person in danger of death or bodily injury; (b) recklessly placed a building or structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; (c) was done with the purpose of collecting insurance for the destruction of or Revised 3/24/03 Page 1 of 4 ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1b (third degree) damage to such property; (d) was done with the purpose of destroying or damaging a structure in order to exempt that structure, completely or partially, from the effect of certain legal regulation; (e) recklessly placed a forest in danger of damage or destruction. The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant purposely [started a fire] [caused an explosion]. It is not necessary that any significant damage be done.1It is only necessary that [a fire be started]2[an explosion be caused] for (one or more of) the purpose(s) or under (one or more of) the circumstances just described. The lack of success of the perpetrator is immaterial.3 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 existence of such circumstances or 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 that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendants conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such as a statement by the defendant that he/she had a particular purpose. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. In other words, in order for the State to prove this element of the offense, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendants purpose or conscious object to [start the fire] [cause the explosion]. 1Div. 1968). See Commentary to New Jersey Penal Code, Vol. II, p.205; State v. Schenk, 100 N.J. Super. 122 (App. 2in the Interest of M.N., 267 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 1993). 3Div. 1968). The act of lighting a match, by itself, is insufficient evidence that defendant purposely started a fire. State See Commentary to New Jersey Penal Code, Vol. II, p.205; State v. Schenk, 100 N.J. Super. 122 (App.Page 2 of 4 ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1b (third degree) The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that [SELECT APPROPRIATE SECTION OR SECTIONS] the defendant by purposely [starting the fire] [causing the explosion]4recklessly placed another person in danger of death or bodily injury. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.5I have already defined the term purposely for you. A person acts recklessly when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.6OR the defendant by purposely [starting the fire] [causing the explosion] recklessly placed a [building] [structure of another] in danger of damage or destruction. I have already defined the term purposely for you. A person acts recklessly when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.7 OR the defendant purposely [started the fire] [caused the explosion] in order to collect insurance for the destruction or damage to such property. I have already defined the term purposely for you. In order for the defendant to have set the fire with the purpose of collecting insurance, the defendants conscious object would have to have been to collect insurance for the propertys destruction or damage. OR the defendant purposely [started the fire] [caused the explosion] with the purpose of destroying 4 5 6 7 If cause is in issue, charge N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). See N.J.S.A 2C:2-2b(3). Page 3 of 4 ARSON N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1b (third degree) or damaging a structure in order to exempt the structure, completely or partially, from the provisions of any State, county or local zoning, planning or building law, regulation, ordinance or enactment. In this case, the State alleges that the [law] [regulation] [ordinance] [enactment] from which the defendant intended to exempt the structure was: [read the applicable provision]. I have already defined the term purposely for you. In order for the defendant to have [set the fire] [caused the explosion] with the purpose of destroying or damaging a structure for the purpose charged, the defendants conscious object would have to have been to exempt that structure, completely or partially, from the provisions of [cite applicable provision], which I have just read. OR the defendant purposely started the fire, thereby recklessly placing [here describe the forest] in danger of damage or destruction. I have already defined the term purposely for you. A person acts recklessly when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.8 A forest means and includes any forest, brush land, grass land, salt marsh, wooded area and any combination thereof, including but not limited to, an open space area, public lands, wetlands, park lands, natural habitats, a State conservation area, a wildlife refuge area or any other designated undeveloped open space whether or not it is subject to specific protection under law.9 If the State has failed to prove any of the elements as I have described them to you beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of arson.10If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of arson. 8 9 10 See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). See N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1f. In many cases it may be necessary to charge the lesser included offenses of failure to report or control a dangerous fire, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1c, or criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3.Page 4 of 4 https://njlaws.com/arson.html?id=5442&a=

Arrested in NJ ? Hire a Real Criminal Defense Attorney

Arrested in NJ ? Hire a real criminal defense attorney, not someone who sends you solicitation letters in the mail. Kenneth Vercammens Law Office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutors Association. Try to Avoid Some of the Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea: 1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s) 2. If you plead guilty: a. You will have a criminal record b. You may go to Jail or Prison. c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs. 3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail. 4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing. 5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution. 6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty. 7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty. 8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3 9. You could be put on Probation. 10. You may be required to do Community Service. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal and serious motor vehicle violations. 1. Telephone consultation with client; 2. Office consultation with client; 3. Offer sound legal advice to client, plus access to our legal info website www.njlaws.com 4. Preparation of Letter of Representation to Municipal Court; 5. Preparation of Letter of Representation to Municipal Court Prosecutor; 6. Preparation of statement to provide legal services; 7. Copies of all correspondence to Court and Prosecutor to client; 8. Opening of file and client may have free client case folder, Municipal Court brochure, MVC-DMV points brochure, and Website brochure; 9. Review of necessary statutes and case law; 10. Follow up with Municipal Prosecutor for discovery if suspension or jail is likely; 11. Prepare defense and mitigating factors; 12. Miscellaneous correspondence, preparation and drafting of pleadings and legal documents in contested serious cases; 13. Review documents supplied by client and court; 14. Travel to Municipal Court 15. Negotiations with the Prosecutor and Representation in Municipal Court. 16. Preparation of End of Case Letter and client questionnaire. 17. Free Brochures provided on other legal topics such as Workers Comp, Wills, Personal Injury 18. Free monthly update e-mail newsletter. Provide your email address; 19. Follow up telephone advice [If you call, provide the specific questions with the message]. 20. Invitation to annual client socials/ seminars and Community events via email. 21. Hold and maintain file for seven years in storage as free client service. When your job or drivers license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. https://njlaws.com/arrestedinnj.html?id=4974&a=

Arrest for a Criminal Violation and Right to Remain Silent Miranda Rights

1. Tell The Police Officer or Detective that you wish to talk to your Lawyer. Repeat this request to every officer who speaks to you. 2. Identify yourself, if asked. If the incident is related to a motor vehicle, produce your license, registration, and insurance card. 3. Beyond identifying yourself, give no other information. Answer NO other questions. SIGN NOTHING. If you are asked any other questions, reply politely, "I would rather not discuss it”. 4. Call your lawyer at the first opportunity. NOTE: If you are arrested for Drunk Driving in New Jersey, you must give breath samples before you call your Lawyer. You are not required to do field sobriety tests such as walking a straight line, Remember: Even a fish would not get caught if they kept their mouth closed. OJ remained silent and is playing golf today. [Copyright 1985-1986 Alan Marain] The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the use of involuntary statements and confessions at trial. The State bears the burden of proof in a motion to suppress a statement allegedly obtained in violation of the Miranda doctrine. New Jersey requires the higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt when the court determines if Miranda has not been fully complied with. State v Yough 49 NJ 587, 600-601 (1967), State v Whittington 142 NJ Super. 45, 49-50 (App. Div. 1976), State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988). WHAT IS INTERROGATION? As set forth in NJ Practice , Vol. 32 Criminal Practice and Procedure (West 1998) Section 755, the United States Supreme Court in Rhode Island V Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) held that the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. It is "an established principle of our federalist system" that states may afford "individual liberties more expansive than those afforded by the federal constitution." State v Novembrino 105 NJ 95, 144-145 (1987). Generally, a statement given by a defendant is not admissible in a criminal case unless the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights before giving the statement and "in light of all the circumstances attending the confession it was given voluntarily." State v Hampton 61 NJ 250, 272 (1972). What is at stake is ensuring the use of effective procedural safeguards to secure the right of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that " no person shall be.... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is now made applicable to state action by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, once informed of his rights " a defendant may waive effectuation of these rights provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently." State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988). citing Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436, 444, 86 S. Ct 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed 2d 694 (1966); emphasis in Flower. In State v Flower 224 NJ Super. 208, 213 (Law Div 1987) aff'd per curiam 224 NJ Super. 90 (App. Div. 1988), the defendant had a low IQ and limited vocabulary. He gave confessions to police and a confession to DYFS. The court excluded the confession to the police, even though Miranda warnings were given and there was lack of coercion and an admitted waiver of rights by the defendant. The court concluded that since the Defendant could not understand his Miranda rights, he could not waive them. One cannot knowingly and intelligently waive a right that he cannot understand or appreciate. 224 NJ Super. at 216. The court also excluded confessions to a DYFS investigator on the same grounds since she was acting in a law enforcement capacity and failed to inform Defendant of his Miranda rights. Id at 220. Where it is charged that a confession was given under the influence of narcotics or during a withdrawal period, the central question of voluntariness remains the same, and the trial court must scrutinize all the pertinent facts attending the confession with particular focus on Defendant's demeanor, coherence, articulateness, capacity to full use of his faculties, his memory and his overall intelligence. State v Arcediano 371 F. Supp. 457 (D. NJ 1974); See also Wade v Yeager 245 F. Supp 62 (D. NJ 1964). The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. If the suspect is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to the point that he cannot understand his constitutional rights, then any waiver is void. If the suspect is suffering from a mental disability which renders him incapable of understanding his constitutional rights, then any waiver is void. The level of mental disability which would render a suspect incapable of understanding his constitutional rights is probably close to the point at which the suspect could be said to be incapable of managing his own affairs. Where circumstances cast doubt on knowing and intelligent quality of alleged waiver of right to counsel, there can be no waiver. State vs. Dickens 192 NJ Super. 290 (App. Div. 1983). Intoxication is grounds to suppress statements. See e.g. Common vs. Brithsher 563 A.2d 502, App granted 575 A.2d 107. (If Defendant's intoxication combined to render him incapable of understanding Miranda warning waiver of Miranda rights would be invalid); Common vs. Andel 477 A.2d 13 56 (1984); (Defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was vitiated by his intoxication, his eyes glaring and had a strong odor of alcohol. Statements made by defendant while in custody should suppressed.) The court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights Johnson vs. Zerbst 304 US 458 58 S. Court 1019, 82 Ed 146 (1938). In Common vs. Hosey 334 NE 2d 44 ( Mass 75 ) the court reversed and remanded a matter where tried judge allowed admission of defendant's statement to police where defendant was extremely high, extremely emotional and detected from reality. Due process requires not only that a conviction not be based on an involuntary confession but also that a trial court hold what has become known as a Jackson Denno hearing when a defendant contests the voluntariness of his statement. Miller vs. Dugger 838 F. 2d 1530 ( 11 Cir. 1988) cert. den 486 US 1061. 1085.S. Ct. 2832 100 L. Ed 2d 933 (1988). At the Jackson- Denno hearing and at oral argument, we will explain through cross-examination and witnesses the involuntary nature of any statements the state intends to produce. CALL KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ. 732-572-0500 For an Appointment About Kenneth Vercammen: Kenneth Vercammen is a Litigation Attorney in Edison, NJ, approximately 17 miles north of Princeton. He often lectures for the American Bar Association and New Jersey State Bar Association on personal injury, criminal / municipal court law and practices to improve service to clients. He has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications on trial and litigation topics. He has served as a Special Acting Prosecutor in seven different cities and towns in New Jersey. In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on many personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, and contested administrative law hearings. https://njlaws.com/arrest_criminal_violation.html?id=6&a=

Anabolic Steroids Illegal in New Jersey

The issue of Barry Bonds and other professional athletes’ possible involvement with steroids now raises questions on high school athletes trying steroids. The New Jersey Commissioner of Health promulgated rules and regulations which classify anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled dangerous substances. The problem of the unlawful use of anabolic steroids by school-age children is a particularly serious one, and that this problem is not limited to student athletes, but also involves students who use these especially dangerous substances with the intent to enhance their physical appearance. These substances often have profound, long-term adverse side effects, and that their unlawful use by children cannot be tolerated.
“Controlled Dangerous Substance” shall mean a drug, substance or immediate precursor as defined at N.J.S.A. 2C:35-2, and shall include controlled substance analogs. Pursuant to regulations adopted by the Department of Health, the term includes anabolic steroids, and shall also be deemed to include Jimson weed (stramonium preparation; N.J.S.A. 2A:170-77.8) and gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), Rohypnol (“roofies”), and flunitrazepam. (See N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.2 and 5.3.)
The website KennethVercammen.com contains articles on penalties for possession of illegal drugs or being under the influence. The Editor of the website is Kenneth Vercammen, who is the past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.
    Kenneth Vercammen was selected to the 2018 Super Lawyers NJ list. The Super Lawyers list is issued by Thomson Reuters, which owns West Publishing USA.  Ken has been a New Jersey Super Lawyers selection 2018, 2017, 2015, 2014, 13, 11, 10, 09, 08, 07, 06 in Criminal Law.
 A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.superlawvers.com/about/selection process detail.html. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
https://profiles.superlawyers.com/new-jersey/edison/lawyer/kenneth-a-vercammen/73f0b3a6-71c1-4ae1-a5d0-803ddb2739a9.html
Ken Vercammen is a Certified Municipal Court Law Attorney by the NJ Supreme Court. Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutors Association.




He is the Deputy chair of the ABA Criminal Law committee, GP Division.
https://njlaws.com/anabolic_steroids.html?id=345&a=

American Eagle Outfitters Factory Shoplifting defenses

American Eagle Outfitters Factory Shoplifting defenses Thestate must prove the Defendant had the knowing intent to commit a criminal act in a shoplifting case. Sometimes the defendant was not aware that there was a criminal act being committed because of mental issues. NJSA 2C: 4-2. Evidence of mental disease or defect admissible when relevant to element of the offense. Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did not have a state of mind, which is an element of the offense. In the absence of such evidence, it may be presumed that the defendant had no mental disease or defect, which would negate a state of mind, which is an element of the offense. Criminal Indictable and Disorderly Offense Penalties Disorderly person criminal offenses- ex Simple Assault, shoplifting & cases in Municipal Court Jail 2C: 43- 8 jail 6 month maximum probation 1-2 year community service 180 days maximum mandatory costs, VCCB and other penalties Disorderly- fines: 2C: 43- 3 $1,000 Fine maximum There are many other penalties that the court must impose in criminal cases. There are dozens of other penalties a court can impose, depending on the type of matter. Indictable Criminal Penalties [Felony type] [ Superior Court] Jail potential Fine max Probation 1st degree 10- 20 years $200,000 [presumption of jail] 2nd degree 5-10 years $150,000 [presumption of jail] 3rd degree 3- 5 years $15,000 1 year- 5 year 4th degree 0- 18 months $10,000 1 year- 5 year The NJ Model Jury charges set forth the elements of SHOPLIFTING [CONCEALMENT] (N.J.S.A. 2C: 20-11b(2)) The statute provides in pertinent part that it is a crime for: any person purposely to conceal upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof. In order for the finder of fact to find the defendant guilty of shoplifting, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. that defendant purposely concealed upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by (name of commercial establishment); 2. that (name of commercial establishment) was a store or other retail mercantile establishment; and 3. that defendant did so with the purpose of depriving the merchant of the processes, use, or benefit of such merchandise [OR of converting such merchandise to his/her use] without paying the merchant the value thereof. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant purposely concealed upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail establishment. The term conceal means to conceal merchandise so that, although there may be some notice of its presence, it is not visible through ordinary observation.1 The term merchandise means any goods, chattels, foodstuffs or wares of any type and description, regardless of the value thereof.2 A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or a result of his conduct if it is the persons conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. That is, a person acts purposely if he or she means to act in a certain way or to cause a certain 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.3 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11a(6). 2 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11a(3). 3 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(1). Purpose is a state of mind. 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 the fact finders 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 third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant acted with the purpose of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise [OR converting such merchandise to his/her use] without paying the merchant the value of the merchandise. WHEN OFFENSE CHARGED REQUIRES A PURPOSEFUL OR KNOWING STATE OF MIND, CONTINUE CHARGE AS FOLLOWS: Although the statute refers to mistake of fact or law as a defense, caselaw makes it clear that it is not genuinely a defense at all: instead, it is an attack on the prosecutions ability to prove the requisite mental state for at least one objective element of the crime. State v. Sexton, 160 N.J. 93, 99-100 (1999). Since it is obviously impossible for any single charge to explain precisely how the offered defense plays into the element[s] of every possible offense that mistake of fact or law could apply to (Sexton, 160 N.J. at 106), and at best can offer a more general charge on the subject of mistake of fact or law (State v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 319 (2004)), this model charge is organized by reference to the state of mind under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b contained in the offense charged by the State, and then by the degree to which the mistake of fact or law exonerates or mitigates the defendants guilt. As always, the trial court must tailor the precise type of mistake that defendant relies on to the facts of the particular crime or offense charged and the facts adduced at trial. State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 379-380 (1988). 2 Since even an unreasonable mistake can negate the required state of mind for the charged offense, the statutory requirement that the defendant reasonably arrived at the conclusion underlying the mistake was eliminated and, therefore, is not referred to in this model charge. Sexton, 160 N.J. at 105; Pena, 178 N.J. at 306. 3 Sexton, 160 N.J. at 100; Pena, 178 N.J. at 306. STATE OF MIND Purpose/knowledge/intent/recklessness/negligence is/are condition(s) 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. It is the fact finders job 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. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE This defendant(s), as are all defendants in criminal cases, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. REASONABLE DOUBT The prosecution must prove its case by more than a mere preponderance of the evidence, yet not necessarily to an absolute certainty. The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence. It is a doubt that a reasonable person hearing the same evidence would have. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof, for example, that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendants guilt. In this world, we know very few things with absolute certainty. In criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. 2C:20-11 b.Shoplifting. Shoplifting shall consist of any one or more of the following acts: (1) For any person purposely to take possession of, carry away, transfer or cause to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the full retail value thereof. (2) For any person purposely to conceal upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof. (3) For any person purposely to alter, transfer or remove any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the value thereof. (4) For any person purposely to transfer any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail merchandise establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof. (5 )For any person purposely to under-ring with the intention of depriving the merchant of the full retail value thereof. (6 )For any person purposely to remove a shopping cart from the premises of a store or other retail mercantile establishment without the consent of the merchant given at the time of such removal with the intention of permanently depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such cart. c.Gradation. Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the second degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is $75,000 or more, or the offense is committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise and the full retail value of the merchandise is $1,000 or more. (2) Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the third degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise exceeds $500 but is less than $75,000, or the offense is committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise and the full retail value of the merchandise is less than $1,000. (3) Shoplifting constitutes a crime of the fourth degree under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is at least $200 but does not exceed $500. (4) Shoplifting is a disorderly persons offense under subsection b. of this section if the full retail value of the merchandise is less than $200. The value of the merchandise involved in a violation of this section may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense where the acts or conduct constituting a violation were committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, or were committed in furtherance of or in conjunction with an organized retail theft enterprise. Additionally, notwithstanding the term of imprisonment provided in N.J.S.2C:43-6 or 2C:43-8, any person convicted of a shoplifting offense shall be sentenced to perform community service as follows: for a first offense, at least ten days of community service; for a second offense, at least 15 days of community service; and for a third or subsequent offense, a maximum of 25 days of community service and any person convicted of a third or subsequent shoplifting offense shall serve a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 90 days. d. Presumptions. Any person purposely concealing uppercased merchandise of any store or other retail mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store or other retail mercantile establishment, shall be prima facie presumed to have so concealed such merchandise with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise without paying the full retail value thereof, and the finding of such merchandise concealed upon the person or among the belongings of such person shall be prima facie evidence of purposeful concealment; and if such person conceals, or causes to be concealed, such merchandise upon the person or among the belongings of another, the finding of the same shall also be prima facie evidence of willful concealment on the part of the person so concealing such merchandise. Copyright 2016 Vercammen Law More info at http://www.njlaws.com/shoplifting.html https://njlaws.com/AmericanEagleShoplifting.html?id=6441&a=

ALTERED MOTOR VEHICLE 2C:17-6b) model jury charge

POSSESSION OF ALTERED MOTOR VEHICLE (N.J.S.A.2C:17-6b)model jury charge Count _________ of the indictment charges the defendant with possessing an altered motor vehicle or motor vehicle part in violation of a statute which provides as follows: A person who for an unlawful purpose knowingly possesses any motor vehicle, or any of the parts thereof, from or on which any [trademark] [distinguishing or identification number] [serial number or mark] has been [removed] [covered] [altered] [changed] [defaced] [destroyed] [obliterated] is guilty of an offense. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of possession of an altered motor vehicle, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)that the defendantpossessed any motor vehicle, or any of the parts thereof, from or on which any [trademark] [distinguishing or identification number] [serial number or mark] has been [removed] [covered] [altered] [changed] [defaced] [destroyed] [obliterated]; (2)that the defendant knew that the [trademark] [distinguishing or identification number] [serial number or mark] had been [removed] [covered] [altered] [changed] [defaced] [destroyed] [obliterated] from the motor vehicle or any of theparts thereof; and (3) that the defendant did so for an unlawful purpose. The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant possessed any motor vehicle, or any of the parts thereof, from or on which any [trademark] [distinguishing or identification number] [serial number or mark] has been [removed] [covered] [altered] [changed] [defaced] [destroyed] [obliterated]. To possess an item under the law, one must have a knowing, intentional control of that item accompanied by a knowledge of its character.So, a person who possesses an item such as ___________ must know or be aware thathe/shepossesses it, andhe/shemust know what it is thathe/shepossesses or controls.[Possession cannot merely be a passing control, fleeting or uncertain in its nature.]To possess an item, one must knowingly procure orreceive an item or be aware ofhis/hercontrol thereof for a sufficient period of time to have been able to relinquishhis/hercontrol ifhe/shechose to do so. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a possessor acted knowingly in possessing the item.A person acts knowinglywith respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or the attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware thathis/herconduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, orhe/sheis aware of the high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly as to a result ofhis/herconduct ifhe/sheis aware that it is practically certain that the conduct will cause such a result.Knowing, with knowledge or equivalent terms have the same meaning. Knowledge is a condition of the mind.It cannot be seen.It can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts.Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that a particular defendant stated, for example, thathe/sheacted with knowledge whenhe/shehad control over a particular thing.It is within your power to find that proof of knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances. A person may possess an item even though it was not physically onhis/herperson at the time of the arrest, ifhe/shehadin fact, at some time prior tohis/herarrest, had control over it. [Possession means a conscious, knowing possession, either actual or constructive.] [A person is in actual possession of an item whenhe/she: first, knows what it is, that is, has knowledge of its character; and second, knowinglyhas it onhis/herperson at a given time.] [Possession may be constructive instead of actual.] [Constructive possession means possession in which the possessor does not physically have the item on his or her person but is aware that the item is present and is able to and has the intention to exercise control over it.So, someone who has knowledge of the character of an item and knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise control over it, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of that item.] [Possession may be sole or joint.If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of an item, possession is sole.If two or more persons share actual or constructive knowing possession of an item, possession is joint.] A motor vehicle includes motor bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, tractors or other vehicles designed to be self-propelled by mechanical power, and otherwise than by muscular power, except motor vehicles running upon or guided by rails or tracks.[1] The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the defendant knew that the [trademark] [distinguishing or identification number] [serial number or mark] had been [removed] [covered] [altered] [changed] [defaced] [destroyed] [obliterated] from the motor vehicle or any of the parts thereof.I have already defined knowingly for you. The third element the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that the defendant did so for an unlawful purpose.Here the State alleges the unlawful purpose to be ______________.[Defendant, on the other hand, claims thathis/herpurpose in possessing the motor vehicle or its part(s) was ____________________________________________.] [CHARGE THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE] [If the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime of possession of an altered motor vehicle or part(s).If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of the crime of possession of an altered motor vehicle or part(s).] [CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE] The defendant is not guilty of this offense if: within 10 days after the motor vehicle or any part thereof shall have come into his possession, he files with the [Motor Vehicle Commission] in the Department of Law and Public Safety a verified statement showing: the source of his title, the proper trademark, identification or distinguishing number, or serial number or mark, if known, and if known, the manner of and reason for the mutilation, change, alteration, concealment or defacement, the length of time the motor vehicle or part has been held and the price paid therefor. Defendant contends thathe/sheis not guilty of the offense becausehe/shefiled such a verified[2]statement in the manner described by this statute.The State has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element of the crime charged.The State also has the burden to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense set forth in this statute.To disprove this defense, the State must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant: 1.Filed a verified statement with the Motor Vehicle Commission; 2.That this verified statement showed the source of defendants title, the proper trademark, identification or distinguishing number, or serial number or mark, if known; 3.That this verified statement set forth the manner of and reason for the mutilation, change, alteration, concealment or defacement, if known, and the length of time the motor vehicle or part has been held and the price paid therefor; and 4.That this verified statement was filed with the Motor Vehicle Commission within 10 days after the [motor vehicle] [part] came into defendants possession. If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged and that the State has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the defense I have described, you must find the defendant guilty.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt one or more of the elements of this offense, or has failed to disprove the defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. [GRADING] If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this crime, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the [motor vehicle] [motor vehicle parts] [exceeded five hundred dollars] [does not exceed five hundred dollars but is at least two hundred dollars] [is less than two hundred dollars].Value is the fair market value of the [motor vehicle] [motor vehicle part] at the time of the possession.[3] [1]N.J.S.A.2C:17-6c. [2]A verification may be defined as a formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public or an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, by which one swears or affirms to the truth of the statements in the document.SeeBlacks Law Dictionary(7thed.). [3]N.J.S.A.2C:1-14m. https://njlaws.com/altered2.html?id=5461&a=