2C:12-1b(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)[1] Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - UPON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF BODILY INJURY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON) (N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(5)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)[1]Model Jury charge Countof this indictment charges the defendant with aggravated assault. (Read appropriate count of indictment). The defendant is accused of violating a law that provides in pertinent part: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (n)egligently causes bodily injury to . . . with a deadly weapon . . . to . . . (a)ny law enforcement officer acting in the performance of (his/her) duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority or because of (his/her) status as a law enforcement officer. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.that the defendant negligently caused bodily injury(insert name of victim); 2.that the defendant caused bodily injury with a deadly weapon; 3.that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer; and 4a.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer[2]acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority;[3]or 4b.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer[4]and purposely committed the act against (him/her) because of (him/her) status as a law-enforcement officer. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant negligently caused bodily injury to(insert name of victim). Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[5] A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense, such as the infliction of bodily injury, when he/she should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actors failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to the actor, involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation. Negligence is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness to testify that the defendant stated that he/she acted with a particular state of mind. It is within your power to find that proof of negligence has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences that may arise from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct in question. For you to find that the defendant caused bodily injury to(insert name of victim), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she would not have been injured but for the defendants conduct.[6] The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant used a deadly weapon to cause bodily injury to(insert name of victim). A deadly weapon is any firearm or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or which in the manner it is fashioned would lead the victim reasonably to believe it to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.[7] The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer. A law-enforcement officer is any person who is employed as a permanent full-time member of any State, county or municipal law-enforcement agency, department or division of those governments and who is statutorily empowered to act for the detection, investigation, arrest, conviction, detention or rehabilitation of persons violating the criminal laws of this state.[8] The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is: a.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer acting in the performance of (his/her) duties or while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of (his/her) authority; or b.that the defendant knew that(insert name of victim)was a law-enforcement officer and purposely committed the act against (him/her) because of (his/her) status as a law-enforcement officer. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is a persons 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 a person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or a person believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one really means to do what he/she does.[9] 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.[10] Like negligence, purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts. If you find that the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find him/her not guilty. (Where appropriate charge simple assault as a lesser offense.)[11]

https://www.njlaws.com/aggass5.html

2C:12-1b(4)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT(N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(4))Model Jury charge Count of the indictment charges defendant with Aggravated Assault by Pointing a Firearm.The statute upon which this count of the indictment is based reads, in pertinent part, as follows: [An actor] is guilty of aggravated assault if he knowingly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, points a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believes it to be loaded. In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this count of the indictment, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First:that the defendant knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the of another whether or not the defendant believed it to be loaded; Second:that the defendant acted under circumstances that manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life. A firearm is defined as any pistol, revolver, rifle etc. (See footnote definition and use appropriate portion thereof as facts dictate).[1] A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if the person is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or the person is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if the person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.In other words, to satisfy this element, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant pointed the firearm, the defendant was aware that he/she was doing so or was aware that it was highly probable that his/her act would result in the pointing of the firearm in such a fashion. [NOTE:When the actual person at whom or in whose direction the firearm is pointed is one other than the intended victim, add: It is immaterial that (name of victim) was not the intended victim so long as the other elements of this crime have been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt.) Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the State to prove that the defendant believed the firearm was loaded. The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted under circumstances that manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life.The phrase under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life does not focus on defendants state of mind, but rather on the circumstances under which you find the defendant acted.The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted in a way that showed that the defendant was indifferent to whether or not the victim or another lived or died, that is, the defendant acted in a way which showed that defendant did not care that someone might be killed. To summarize, the State must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to find the defendant guilty of this count: (1)That the defendant knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the defendant believed it to be loaded; (2)That the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. If you are satisfied that these two elements have been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.If you are not satisfied that the State has proven these two elements beyond a reasonable doubt then you must find the defendant not guilty. https://www.njlaws.com/2C121b4ModelJurychargeAGGRAVATEDASSAULTNJSA.html

2C:12-1b(4)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT(N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(4))Model Jury charge Count of the indictment charges defendant with Aggravated Assault by Pointing a Firearm.The statute upon which this count of the indictment is based reads, in pertinent part, as follows: [An actor] is guilty of aggravated assault if he knowingly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, points a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believes it to be loaded. In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this count of the indictment, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First:that the defendant knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the of another whether or not the defendant believed it to be loaded; Second:that the defendant acted under circumstances that manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life. A firearm is defined as any pistol, revolver, rifle etc. (See footnote definition and use appropriate portion thereof as facts dictate).[1] A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if the person is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or the person is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if the person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.In other words, to satisfy this element, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant pointed the firearm, the defendant was aware that he/she was doing so or was aware that it was highly probable that his/her act would result in the pointing of the firearm in such a fashion. [NOTE:When the actual person at whom or in whose direction the firearm is pointed is one other than the intended victim, add: It is immaterial that (name of victim) was not the intended victim so long as the other elements of this crime have been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt.) Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the State to prove that the defendant believed the firearm was loaded. The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted under circumstances that manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life.The phrase under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life does not focus on defendants state of mind, but rather on the circumstances under which you find the defendant acted.The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted in a way that showed that the defendant was indifferent to whether or not the victim or another lived or died, that is, the defendant acted in a way which showed that defendant did not care that someone might be killed. To summarize, the State must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to find the defendant guilty of this count: (1)That the defendant knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the defendant believed it to be loaded; (2)That the defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. If you are satisfied that these two elements have been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.If you are not satisfied that the State has proven these two elements beyond a reasonable doubt then you must find the defendant not guilty.

https://www.njlaws.com/aggass4.html

2C:12-1b(11)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - USE OF LASER SIGHTING SYSTEM OR DEVICE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(11))Model Jury charge

Count __________ of the indictment charges the defendant with aggravated assault by use of a laser sighting system or device against a law enforcement officer.

(Read Count of Indictment)

The defendant is accused of violating a law that provides as follows:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he [u]ses or activates a laser sighting system or device, or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device, against a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.that the defendant knowingly used or activated a laser sighting system or device, or a device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device; and

2.that the defendant knowingly used the laser sighting system or device, or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device, against a person who he/she knew was a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his/her duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his/her authority.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly used or activated a laser sighting system or device, or a device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device.

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 if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.

Knowledge 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 the defendants acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances.

A laser sighting system or device means any system or device that is integrated with or affixed to a firearm and emits a laser light beam that is used to assist in the sight alignment or aiming of the firearm.^[1]A laser sighting system or device also includes a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device.

[CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE]The term firearm also includes devices in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.

A firearm means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances.^[2]

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly used a laser sighting system or device or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device against a person whom he/she knew was a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his/her duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his/her authority.

Law enforcement officer means 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.^[3]

If you find that the State has proven all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.

https://www.njlaws.com/2C121b11ModelJurycharge.html

2C:12-1b(11)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - USE OF LASER SIGHTING SYSTEM ORDEVICE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(11))Model Jury charge Count __________ of the indictment charges the defendant with aggravated assault by use of a laser sighting system or device against a law enforcement officer. (Read Count of Indictment) The defendant is accused of violating a law that provides as follows: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he [u]ses or activates a laser sighting system or device, or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device, against a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his authority. For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.that the defendant knowingly used or activated a laser sighting system or device, or a device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device; and 2.that the defendant knowingly used the laser sighting system or device, or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device, against a person whohe/sheknew was a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his/her duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his/her authority. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant knowingly used or activated a laser sighting system or device, or a device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device. 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. Knowledge 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 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 the defendants acts and conduct, from all thathe/shesaid and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances. A laser sighting system or device means any system or device that is integrated with or affixed to a firearm and emits a laser light beam that is used to assist in the sight alignment or aiming of the firearm.[1]A laser sighting system or device also includes a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device. [CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE]The term firearm also includes devices in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person. A firearm means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances.[2] The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that thedefendantknowinglyused a laser sighting system or device or a system or device which, in the manner used, would cause a reasonable person to believe that it is a laser sighting system or device against a person whomhe/sheknew was a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his/her duties while in uniform or exhibiting evidence of his/her authority. Law enforcement officer means 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.[3] If you find that the State has proven all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty. https://www.njlaws.com/aggass12.html

2C:12-1b(10)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT(POINTING OR DISPLAYING IMITATION FIREARM

AT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER)

(N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(10))[1]Model Jury charge

Count of this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of aggravated assault.

(READ INDICTMENT)

The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:

A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (k)nowingly points, displays or uses an imitation firearm . . . at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer;

2.that the defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer; and

3.that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer.

An imitation firearm is defined as an object or device reasonably capable of being

mistaken for a firearm.[2]

A firearm is defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or automatic or semi-automatic rifle.[3]

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.[4]

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/sheis aware that his/her conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist or if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to the result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.

Knowledge 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 the defendants acts and conduct, from all that he/she said 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 defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer.

As I instructed you earlier, a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that such circumstances exist or if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose.

A person acts with purpose 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 with purpose with respect to attendant circumstances if he/she believes or hopes that they exist. A person acts with purpose 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. As with knowledge, 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 person has a purpose to use an imitation firearm unlawfully if he/she has a purpose to use it in a manner that is prohibited by law. In this case, the State contends that the defendants unlawful purpose was[describe the unlawful purpose alleged by the State].[5]

[If the defense alleges a lawful purpose, the trial court should instruct the jury on the defense claim. See, for example, the model charge for Possession of a Firearm for an Unlawful Purpose,N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a.

You must not rely on your own notions of the unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of the defendant. Rather, you must consider whether the State proved the specific unlawful purpose alleged.[6]The unlawful purpose alleged by the State may be inferred from all that was said or done and from all of the surrounding circumstances in this case. However, the State need not prove that the defendant accomplished his/her unlawful purpose.

Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[7]

If you find that the State has proved each and every element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

https://www.njlaws.com/2C121b10ModelJurycharge.html

2C:12-1b(10)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT(POINTING OR DISPLAYING IMITATION FIREARM AT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) (N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(10))[1]Model Jury charge Count of this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of aggravated assault. (READ INDICTMENT) The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (k)nowingly points, displays or uses an imitation firearm . . . at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer; 2.that the defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer; and 3.that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer. An imitation firearm is defined as an object or device reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm.[2] A firearm is defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or automatic or semi-automatic rifle.[3] 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.[4] 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. Knowledge 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 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 the 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 defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer. As I instructed you earlier, a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of the attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware that such circumstances exist or ifhe/sheis aware of a high probability of their existence. The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. A person acts with purpose 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 with purpose with respect to attendant circumstances ifhe/shebelieves or hopes that they exist. A person acts with purpose ifhe/sheacts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or ifhe/shemeans to do whathe/shedoes. As with knowledge, 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 person has a purpose to use an imitation firearm unlawfully ifhe/shehas a purpose to use it in a manner that is prohibited by law. In this case, the State contends that the defendants unlawful purpose was[describe the unlawful purpose alleged by the State].[5] [If the defense alleges a lawful purpose, the trial court should instruct the jury on the defense claim. See, for example, the model charge for Possession of a Firearm for an Unlawful Purpose,N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. You must not rely on your own notions of the unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of the defendant. Rather, you must consider whether the State proved the specific unlawful purpose alleged.[6]The unlawful purpose alleged by the State may be inferred from all that was said or done and from all of the surrounding circumstances in this case. However, the State need not prove that the defendant accomplishedhis/herunlawful purpose. Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[7] If you find that the State has proved each and every element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. https://www.njlaws.com/aggass11.html

2C:12-1b(10)) Model Jury charge

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT(POINTING OR DISPLAYING IMITATION FIREARM AT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) (N.J.S.A.2C:12-1b(10))[1]Model Jury charge Countof this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of aggravated assault. (READ INDICTMENT) The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (k)nowingly points, displays or uses an imitation firearm . . . at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1.that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer; 2.that the defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer; and 3.that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knowingly pointed, displayed or used an imitation firearm at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer. An imitation firearm is defined as an object or device reasonably capable of being mistaken for a firearm.[2] A firearm is defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or automatic or semi-automatic rifle.[3] 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.[4] 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. Knowledge 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 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 the 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 defendant knew that the person was a law enforcement officer. As I instructed you earlier, a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of the attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware that such circumstances exist or ifhe/sheis aware of a high probability of their existence. The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose. A person acts with purpose 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 with purpose with respect to attendant circumstances ifhe/shebelieves or hopes that they exist. A person acts with purpose ifhe/sheacts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or ifhe/shemeans to do whathe/shedoes. As with knowledge, 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 person has a purpose to use an imitation firearm unlawfully ifhe/shehas a purpose to use it in a manner that is prohibited by law. In this case, the State contends that the defendants unlawful purpose was[describe the unlawful purpose alleged by the State].[5] [If the defense alleges a lawful purpose, the trial court should instruct the jury on the defense claim. See, for example, the model charge for Possession of a Firearm for an Unlawful Purpose,N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. You must not rely on your own notions of the unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of the defendant. Rather, you must consider whether the State proved the specific unlawful purpose alleged.[6]The unlawful purpose alleged by the State may be inferred from all that was said or done and from all of the surrounding circumstances in this case. However, the State need not prove that the defendant accomplishedhis/herunlawful purpose. Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[7] If you find that the State has proved each and every element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault.If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

2C: 104-9 Orders Appealable

2C: 104-9 Orders Appealable

A material witness order shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal, but, on motion of the material witness, may be reconsidered at any time by the court which entered the order.

Source: New.

L.1994,c.126,s.9.
https://www.njlaws.com/2C-104-9.html

2C:104-1. Definitions

a. A material witness is a person who has information material to the prosecution or defense of a crime.  b. A material witness order is a court order fixing conditions necessary to secure the appearance of a person who is unlikely to respond to a subpoena and who has information material to the prosecution or defense of a pending indictment, accusation or complaint for a crime or a criminal investigation before a grand jury. https://www.njlaws.com/2c-104-1.html