N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1c

Approved 3/24/03

FAILURE TO CONTROL OR REPORT A DANGEROUS FIRE

N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1c (fourth degree)

The indictment charges the defendant with failu re to control or report a dangerous fire in

violation of a statute which reads in pertinent part as follows:

A person who knows that a fire is e ndangering life or a substantial

amount of property of another and e ither fails to take reasonable

measures to put out or control the fire, when he can do so without

substantial risk to himself, or to give prompt fire alarm, commits a

crime. . .if:

(1) He knows that he is under an official, contractual, or other legal

duty to prevent or to combat the fire; or

(2) The fire was started, albeit la wfully, by him or with his assent,

or on property in his custody or control.

In order for the defendant to be guilty of failure to contro l or report a dangerous fire, the

State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

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

knew that a fire was endangering life or a substantial amount of property of another; and

2. The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the

defendant either (a) failed to take reasonable measures to put out or control the fire, when he/she

could have done so without substantial risk to himself/herself; or (b) failed to give prompt fire

alarm; and

[SELECT APPROPRIATE SECTION OR SECTIONS]

3. The third element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doub t is that defendant

knew that he/she was under an offi cial, contractual or other legal duty to prevent or combat the

fire;

OR

3. The third element the Stat e must prove beyond a reasonabl e doubt is that the fire was

started, albeit lawfully, by defendant or with his/her assent, or on propert y in his/her custody or

Failure to Control or Report a

Dangerous Fire

N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1c (fourth degree)

control.1

[CHARGE THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION IN ALL CASES]

A person acts knowingly with re spect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant

circumstances if he/she is aware th at his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances

exist, or he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with

respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practica lly certain that his/her

conduct will cause such a result. Knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and

can only be determined by inferences drawn from th e defendant’s 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 pa rticular knowledge. It is within the power of

the jury to find that the pr oof of knowledge has been furn ished 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.

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 defenda nt not guilty of the crime of failure to

control or report a dangerous fire. If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable

doubt, you must find defendant guilty of that crime.

1 Many of the concepts discussed in this charge, i.e., promptness of an alarm, reasonable measures to control

a fire and official, contractual or other legal duty to prev ent or combat a fire, will be highly fact-sensitive. If

necessary, the Court should not hesitate to tailor this charge to better fit the facts before the jury.