N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1c

Approved 4/7/14

THREATENING TO KILL, MAIM OR INFLICT HARM UPON AN ANIMAL USED BY

A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1(c)

(eff. 8/14/13)

Count _____ of this indictment charges the defendant with the crime of threatening to

kill, maim or inflict harm upon an animal owned or use d b y a law enforcement agency or an

animal who is a search and rescue dog.

(READ INDICTMENT)

The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:

Any person who purposely threatens to kill, maim or otherwise

inflict harm upon a dog, horse or other animal owned or used by a

law enforcement agency or a search and rescue dog, under

circumstances reasonably causing the person to whom the threat is

made to believe that it is likely to be carried out . . .

is guilty of a crime.

In order for you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that the defendant purposely threatened to kill, maim or otherwise inflict harm

upon an animal;

2. that the dog, horse or other a nimal was (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE) owned

or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog;

3. that the defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal was ( CHOOSE AS

APPROPRIATE) owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search

and rescue dog; and

4. that the threat was made under circumstances causing the person to whom the

threat was made to reasonably believe that the threat would likely be carried out.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the

defendant purposely threatened to ki ll, maim, or otherwise inflict harm upon a dog, horse or

other animal.

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 hopes that they exist. A

THREATENING TO KILL, MAIM OR INFLICT

HARM UPON AN ANIMAL USED BY A LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1(c))

person acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or

purpose, if he/she means to do what he/she does.

Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only by

inferences from conduct, words, or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof but

must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce

witnesses to testify that a defendant 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 fu rnished

beyond a reasonable doubt by inference, which may arise from the nature of defendant’s 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 dog,

horse or other animal was ( CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE) owned or used by a law

enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog. (CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE ). A law

enforcement agency is a department, division, bureau, commission, board or other authority of

the State or of any political subdivision thereof which employs law enforcement officers.

1 A law

enforcement officer is a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the

detection, apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of this State. 2 The

term “search and rescue dog” means any dog trained or being trained for the purpose of search

and rescue that is owned by an independent handler or member of a search and rescue team, and

used in conjunction with local law enforcement or emergency services organizations for the

purpose of locating missing persons or evidence of arson.

3

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the

defendant knew that the dog, horse or other animal was ( CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE)

owned or used by a law enforcement agency (OR) a search and rescue dog.

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature 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

1 N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19b.

2 N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19c

3 N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1.

THREATENING TO KILL, MAIM OR INFLICT

HARM UPON AN ANIMAL USED BY A LAW

ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR A SEARCH AND RESCUE DOG

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3.1(c))

respect to the result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practical ly certain that his/her

conduct will cause such a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge,” or equivalent terms have the

same meaning.

Like purpose, 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 a defendant 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

defendant’s acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place,

and from all surrounding circumstances.

The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the threat

was made under circumstances causing the per son to whom the threat was made to reasonably

believe that the threat would likely be carried out.4

If you find that the State has proven each element of this offense beyond a reasonable

doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, you find that the State has failed to

prove any element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant

not guilty.

4 Although no caselaw addresses the standard in connection with this statute, there is similarly -

worded language contained in the Terroristic Threats (Threat to Kill) statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b)). The

language in that statute has been interpreted to mean that the threat must be such that it would reasonably

convey a fear to an “ordinary person.”