N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)

Revised 5/8/06

SIMPLE ASSAULT (Bodily Injury)(Lesser Included Offense)

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1))

The law requires that the Court instruct the jury with respect to possible (lesser) included

offenses, even if they are not contained in the indictment. Just because the Court is instructing

you concerning these offenses does not mean that the Court has any opinion one way or another

about whether the defendant committed these, or any, offenses. You should consider these

offenses along with those for which the defendant is indicted. However, you are not to render a

verdict on these offenses or answer the questio ns on the verdict sheet unless you find that the

State has failed to meet its burden with regard to the offense(s) in the indictment.

Simple assault is a lesser-included offense to count ______ of this indictment. The statute

which defines simple assault provides that:

A person commits a simple assault if he attempts to cause or

purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another.

In order for you to convict the defendant of this offense, the State must prove the

following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(CHARGE AS APPROPRIATE)

OPTION ONE (Causing Bodily Injury)

1. That the defendant did cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM; and

2. That the defendant acted purposely or knowingly or re cklessly in causing bodily

injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or another).1

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

caused bodily injury to another.

1 A person can violate the provisions of the statute under a theory of transferred intent. See

N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(d).

SIMPLE ASSAULT (BODILY INJURY)

(LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)

Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any im pairment of the physical

condition.2

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

acted purposely or knowingly or reckle ssly in causing bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM or

(Another).

A person acts purposely with respect to causing bod ily injury to another if it is a person's

conscious object to cause bodily injury to a nother. 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 d eemed to be acting purp osely if one acts with

design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one really means to do what he/she does.

A person acts knowingly with respect to causing bodily injury 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 re sult of his/her conduct

if a person is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause bodily injury. One

is said to act knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if he/she

comprehends his/her acts.

A person acts recklessly with respect to cau sing bodily injury when a person consciously

disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from

his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a na ture and degree that, considering the nature and

purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstan ces known to the actor its disregard involves a

gross deviation from the standard of conduct th at a reasonable person would observe in the

2 N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(a).

SIMPLE ASSAULT (BODILY INJURY)

(LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)

actor's situation. One is said to act recklessly if one acts with recklessness, with scorn for the

consequences, heedlessly, foolhardily.

The nature of the purpose or knowledge or r ecklessness with which the defendant acted

toward the victim

of the assault is a question of fact for you th e jury to decide. Purpose and

knowledge and recklessness are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be

determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce

a witness or witnesses who could testify that th e defendant stated, for example, that his/her

purpose was to cause bodily injur y. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or

knowledge or recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which

may arise from the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances.

3

If you find that the State has proved each el ement of the offense beyond a reasonable

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

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

not guilty.

OPTION TWO (ATTEMPT TO CAUSE BODILY INJURY):

1. That the defendant attempted to cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or

another); and

2. That the defendant acted purposely.

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

attempted to cause bodily injury to another.

3 If causation is an issu e, the jury should be in structed on causation. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-

3a(1) et. seq.

SIMPLE ASSAULT (BODILY INJURY)

(LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)

Bodily injury is defined as physical pain, illness or any impairment of the physical

condition.

The second element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is the defendant

purposely attempted to cause bodily injury to NAME OF VICTIM (or another).

A person acts purposely with respect to causing bodily injury if it is a person's conscious

object to cause bodily injury. A person acts purposel y 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.

The law provides that a person attempts to commit the crime of simple assault if, acting

purposefully, he:

(select appropriate section)

1. Engaged in conduct that would consti tute the offense if the attendant

circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;

(or)

2. Did (or omitted to do) a nything with the purpose of causing bodily injury to

another without further conduct on his part . This means that the defendant(s) did

something designed to cause bodily injury without having to take any further

action.

(or)

3. Did (or omitted to do) anything that, under the circumstances as a reasonable

person would believe them to be, was an act (or omission) constituting a

substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of

the crime.

The step taken must be one that is strong ly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal

purpose. The accused must be shown to have had a firmness of criminal purpose in light of the

SIMPLE ASSAULT (BODILY INJURY)

(LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE)

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)

step(s) he/she had alrea dy taken. T hese preparatory steps must be substantial and not just very

remote preparatory acts.4

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

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

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

not guilty.5

4 If renunciation of criminal purpose is alleged, see N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(d), that portion of the

Model Jury Charge on Attempt regarding renunciation should also be charged.

5 Simple Assault is a disorderly persons offens e. It is a petty disorderly persons offense if

the assault was committed in a fight or in a scuffle entered into by mutual consent. See N.J.S.A.

2C:12-1. If a reasonable view of the evidence supports a view that such circumstances may

exist, the jury should be instructed that the State bears the burden of proving the absence of such

circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000); State

v. Johnson, 166 N.J . 523 (2001). See also State v. Jordon , 86 N.J.Super. 585 (App. Div. 1965),

interpreting predecessor fighting statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:170-27.