|
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Bail Bonds, Bail Reductions, Bail Hearings
Bail Bonds If Charged with a Criminal Offense
|
Auto Theft
Auto Theft
2C:20-18. Leader of auto theft trafficking network, penalty.
A person is a leader of an auto theft trafficking network if he conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager, to engage for profit in a scheme or course of conduct to unlawfully take, dispose of, distribute, bring into or transport in this State automobiles as stolen property. Leader of auto theft trafficking network is a crime of the second degree. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, the court may impose a fine not to exceed $250,000.00 or five times the retail value of the automobiles seized at the time of the arrest, whichever is greater.Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8, a conviction of leader of auto theft trafficking network shall not merge with the conviction for any offense which is the object of the conspiracy. Nothing contained in this act shall prohibit the court from imposing an extended term pursuant to N.J.S.2C:43-7; nor shall this act be construed in any way to preclude or limit the prosecution or conviction of any person for conspiracy under N.J.S.2C:5-2, or any prosecution or conviction for any other offense.
It shall not be necessary in any prosecution under this act for the State to prove that any intended profit was actually realized. The trier of fact may infer that a particular scheme or course of conduct was undertaken for profit from all of the attending circumstances, including but not limited to the number of persons involved in the scheme or course of conduct, the actor's net worth and his expenditures in relation to his legitimate sources of income, the number of automobiles involved, or the amount of cash or currency involved.
It shall not be a defense to a prosecution under this act that the automobile was brought into or transported in this State solely for ultimate distribution in another jurisdiction; nor shall it be a defense that any profit was intended to be made in another jurisdiction.
2C:20-2.2. Additional fine for auto theft.
Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3, if the fair market value of the automobile and its contents at the time it was stolen exceeds $7,500.00 and the automobile is not recovered, the court may sentence the defendant to pay a fine for that higher amount
https://njlaws.com/auto_theft.html?id=25&a=
Attempted Murder/Attempted Passion/Provocation Manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, 2C:11-4 and 2C:5-1) model jury charge
|
ATTEMPTED MURDER (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1)) model jury charge
ATTEMPTED MURDER (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1; N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1)) model jury charge |
ATTEMPTED MURDER[1]
N.J.S.A.2C:11-3a(1)
The Indictment charges the defendant with the crime of attempted murder.In order for you to find the defendant guilty of an attempted murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendants purpose to cause the death of the victim. More specifically, the law provides that a person is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime of murder, if the person:
[Select appropriate section]
[Attempt-Impossibility]
(1)Purposely engaged in conduct which was intended to cause the death of the victim, if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;
[or]
[Attempt-When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]
(2)Did or omitted to do anything with the purpose of causing the death of the victim without further conduct on his part.
[or]
[Attempt-Substantial Step]
(3)Purposely did or omitted to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his causing the death of the victim.
Thus, in order to find the defendant guilty of the crime of attempted murder, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, it was the defendants purpose to cause the death of _____________.
Secondly, the defendant:
[Select Appropriate Section]
[Attempt - Impossibility]
(1)Purposely engaged in conduct which was intended to cause the death of the victim, if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;
[or]
[Attempt-When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]
(2)Did or omitted to do anything with the purpose of causing the death of the victim without further conduct onhis/herpart.
[or]
[Attempt-Substantial Step]
(3)Purposely did or omitted to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate inhis/hercausing the death of the victim.
First, the State must prove that the defendant acted purposely.
Purposely means it was the persons conscious object to cause the death of the victim.[2]
Whether the defendants purpose was to cause the death of the victim is a question of fact for you to decide.Purpose is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from conduct, words or acts.It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness or witnesses who could testify that the defendant stated, for example, thathis/herpurpose was to cause the death of the victim.It is within your power to find that proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances.Such things as the place where the acts occurred, the weapon used, the location, number and nature of wounds inflicted, and all that was done or said by the defendant preceding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the events are among the circumstances to be considered.Causing the death of the victim must be within the design or contemplation of the defendant.
The use of a deadly weapon such as a(describe the deadly weapon used)in itself may permit you to draw an inference that the defendants purpose was to take a life.A deadly weapon is any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death. . .[3]In your deliberations you may consider the weapon used and the manner and circumstances of the attack, and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (shot) (stabbed) the victim with a (gun) (knife) you may draw an inference from the weapon used, that is the (gun) (knife), and from the manner and circumstances of the attack, as to the defendants purpose.
Secondly, the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:
[Select the appropriate section]
(A)Purposely engaged in conduct which was intended to cause the death of the victim if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be.
If the defendants conduct would have caused the death of the victim had the facts been as a reasonable person would have believed them to be, you should consider that conduct as evidence of the guilt of the attempt to purposely cause the victims death.It does not matter that the defendant was frustrated in accomplishinghis/herobjective because the facts were not as a reasonable person would believe them to be; it is no defense that the defendant could not succeed in reachinghis/hergoal because of circumstances unknown to the defendant.[4]
or
[When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime of Murder ]
(B)Did or omitted to do anything with the purpose of causing the death of the victim without further conduct onhis/herpart.
This means that the defendant did or failed to do anything designed to accomplish the death of the victim without having to take further action.Where the defendant has done all thathe/shebelieves necessary to cause the death of the victim, you should consider that as evidence of guilt of attempt to purposely cause the victims death.[5]
[or]
[Attempt-Substantial Step]
(C)Purposely did or omitted to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate inhis/hercausing the death of the victim.However, the step taken must be one which is strongly corroborative of the defendants criminal purpose.The defendant must be shown to have had a firmness of criminal purpose to cause the death of the victim.Preparatory steps, if any, must be substantial and not just very remote preparatory acts.[6]
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of an attempted murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendants purpose to cause the death of the victim.The State, however, is not required to prove a motive.If the State has proved the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be found guilty of the offense regardless of the defendants motive or lack of motive.
If the State, however, has proved a motive, you may consider that insofar as it gives meaning to other circumstances.[7]On the other hand, you may consider the absence of motive in weighing whether or not the defendant is guilty of attempted murder.
If after a consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State has proved all of the elements of the crime of attempted murder, then your verdict must be guilty.
If, however, after a consideration of all the evidence, you find the State has failed to prove each and every element of the crime of attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt, your verdict must be not guilty.
[Charge where appropriate]
RENUNCIATION OF CRIMINAL PURPOSE
[To be used when the defendants conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under sections B or C set forth above]
As part of the defendants denial of guilt, the defendant raises the defense of renunciation of criminal purpose.
The defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, thathe/sheabandonedhis/hereffort to cause the death of the victim, or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances manifesting a complete andvoluntary decision to abandonhis/hercriminal purpose.The abandonment of the criminal effort must originate with the defendant and not be forced upon the defendant by some external circumstance, such as police intervention.[8]Renunciation of criminal purpose will not be deemed to be voluntary if it is motivated in whole or in part by circumstances not present or apparent at the beginning of the defendants course of conduct which increases the probability of detection or apprehension or which make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose.Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until a more advantageous time or to transfer the criminal effort to another victim.Nor is renunciation complete if mere abandonment is insufficient to accomplish avoidance of the death of the victim.In this instance, the defendant must have taken further and affirmative steps that prevented the commission of the offense.A renunciation, in order to be complete, must prevent the completion of the crime.[9]
[1]Not to be used if murder is also charged in the indictment.State v. Rhett, 127N.J. 3(1992).
[2]As noted in theFinalReportoftheNewJerseyCriminalLawRevisionCommission, Vol. II:Commentary, p.114: the definition of attempt in the Code follows the conventional pattern of limiting this inchoate crime to purposive conduct.See also,State v. McAllister, 211N.J. Super. 355 (App. Div. 1986 ).See alsoState v. Gilliam, 224N.J. Super. 759, 762 ( App. Div. 1988 ), reversing an attempted murder conviction, noting that the crime of attempted murder must be limited to attempts to cause death, not serious bodily injury.See alsoState v. Darby, 220N.J. Super. 327 ( App. Div. 1984 ), certif. den. 101N.J.226 (1985).State v. Rhett, 127N.J.3 (1992).
[3]N.J.S.A2C:11-1c;State v. Jones, 115N.J.L. 257, 262 (E. & A. 1935).
[4]Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary, p. 114-115 (citingState v. Moretti, 52N.J. 182, 186-90 (1968)).N.J.S.A. 2C:5-a(1) rejects outright the defense of impossibility.
[5]Id. at 116.This is the so-called last proximate act doctrine.
[6]State v. Fornino, 223N.J. Super. 531 ( App. Div. 1988 ).
[7]State v. Beard, 16N.J. 50, 60 (1954).
[8]Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Vol. II:Commentary p. 124.
[9]Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary, p.125.
https://njlaws.com/Attempted_murder.html?id=5361&a= |
ATTEMPT (N.J.S.A. 2C:5‑1) model jury charge
ATTEMPT (N.J.S.A. 2C:5‑1) model jury charge |
ATTEMPT(N.J.S.A. 2C:5‑1)ALTERNATIVE I[To be used when defendant is charged with Attempt]
The indictment charges that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of _________________________.
ALTERNATIVE II
[If the facts raise the question whether the crime was completed, the jury should be instructed to turn to a consideration of whether an attempt to commit the crime has been established.[1]]
The indictment charges that the defendant committed the crime of _________________________. If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of ______________________ was committed, then you should consider whether an attempt to commit the crime has been established.
[If “knowing” or lesser culpability would have sufficed for the completed crime, add the following]
Before I explain the definition of an attempt, let me explain an important difference between an attempt and the crime of _____________________. Although it is possible to commit the crime of _____________________ with [knowledge/recklessness], to be guilty of an attempt the defendant must act with purpose. In other words, the defendant must have the purpose to commit the crime of ______________________, in order to be guilty of attempting it.[2]
[MAIN CHARGE]
The law provides that a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person:[3]
[Select the appropriate section]
[(1) Attempt - Impossibility]
Purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;
[or]
[(2) Attempt - When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]
Does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing [result] without further conduct on his part.
[or]
[(3) Attempt-Substantial Step]
Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
Thus, in order to find the defendant guilty of a criminal attempt, the State must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
[Select the appropriate Section]
[(1) Attempt - Impossibility]
The first element is that the defendant acted purposely. A defendant 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/sheis aware of the existence of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.
The second element is that the defendant engaged in conduct which would constitute the crime of _______________ had the facts been as a reasonable person would have believed them to be.
[Here define the crime allegedly attempted if it has not been defined already, or refer jurors to the definition previously charged]
If the accused purposely engaged in conduct that would constitute the crime of _______________ had the facts been as a reasonable person would have believed them to be, you should consider that conduct as evidence of guilt of attempt to commit____________. It does not matter that the defendant failed to accomplish his/her intended result because the facts were not as a reasonable person would have believed them to be; it is no defense that the defendant could not succeed in reaching his/her intended result because of circumstances unknown to him/her. However, there cannot be an attempt to commit a crime unless the attempt, if completed, would have constituted the crime.[4]
[or]
[(2) When Causing a Particular Result is an Element of the Crime]
First, that the defendant had the purpose to cause [here state the result that is an element of the alleged attempted crime]. A defendant 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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.
The second element is that the defendant did or omitted to do anything to cause [state the result which is an element] without further conduct or action on his/her part. Where the accused has done all that he/she believes necessary to cause [state the result which is an element], you should consider that as evidence of guilt of an attempt to commit____________.
[or]
[(3) Substantial Step]
First, that the defendant had the purpose to commit the crime of ______________. A defendant acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/herconduct 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 he/she believes or hopes that they exist.
The second element is that the defendant purposely did or omitted to do anything, which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission that is a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his/her commission of the crime. However, the step taken must strongly show the defendant’s criminal purpose. That is, the step taken must be substantial and not just a very remote preparatory act, and must show that the accused has a firmness of criminal purpose.
[Charge in Every Case Except One Involving the Renunciation Defense]
If you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of an attempt to commit___________. However, if you find that the State failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of an attempt to commit____________.
[Charge Where Appropriate]
RENUNCIATION OF CRIMINAL PURPOSE
[To be used when the defendant’s conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under Section 2 or 3 above]
As part of the defendant’s denial of guilt, the defendant raised the defense of renunciation of criminal purpose.
The accused must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he/she abandoned his/her effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances that show a complete and voluntary decision to renounce his/her criminal purpose. The abandonment of the criminal effort must begin with the defendant and not be forced upon him/her by some outside event, such as police intervention.[5] Renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if the reason for it is that it seems more likely that defendant will be detected or caught, or the objective seems more difficult than it did at the beginning of the course of conduct. Renunciation is not complete if the defendant only decides to postpone the criminal conduct to a better time or to focus on another but similar objective or victim. If mere abandonment of the criminal effort is not enough to prevent the offense, then the defendant must have taken further and affirmative steps that actually prevented the commission of the offense.[6]
As I stated, the defendant must prove renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence. I previously explained that the State has the burden of proving every element of the crime(s) charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence is a lesser burden. It simply means that the defendant has the burden of establishing that the evidence supporting renunciation is more likely true than not. Another way to describe it is the greater weight of the believable evidence in the case. It does not necessarily mean the evidence of the greater number of witnesses, but rather, the evidence that carries the greater convincing power in your minds. I remind you, however, that the burden of proving every element of the attempt to commit___________as I have previously defined it is always on the State and never on the defendant.
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 of an attempt to commit____________. Also, if you find the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the defendant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she renounced his/her criminal purpose, then you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant has failed to establish renunciation by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant guilty.
[1] N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8d(2).
[2] State v. Rhett, 127 N.J. 3, 6-7 (1992); State v. Robinson, 136 N.J. 476, 485-86 (1994).
[3] Because all attempts must be purposeful, State v. Rhett, 136 N.J. 476; State v. Robinson, 127 N.J. 3, and because other portions of the statute include the requirement of purpose, the language in N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a, “acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime,” should not be charged.
[4] Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Vol. II: Commentary, pp.114-115, quoting from State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 186-90 (1968). N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a(1) rejects outright the defense of impossibility.
[5] Code Commentary at 124.
[6] Id. at 125.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)