N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-4

Approved 5/5/82

COMPOUNDING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-4)

The defendant is charged with the cr iminal offense of compounding a crime.

(Read appropriate Count of Indictment)

The pertinent part of the statute on which this indictment is based reads as follows:

(Select appropriate part of statute)

(ACCEPTS)

A person commits a crime if he accepts or agrees to accept any

pecuniary benefit in consideration of refraining from reporting to law

enforcement authorities the commi ssion or suspected commission of

any offense or information relating to an offense or from seeking

prosecution of an offense.

or (CONFERS)

A person commits a crime if he c onfers or agrees to confer any

pecuniary benefit in consideratio n of the other person agreeing to

refrain from any such reporting or seeking prosecution.

In order to convict the defe ndant of the criminal offens e of compounding a crime, the

State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:

(ACCEPTS)

1. That the defendant accepted or ag reed to accept any pecuniary benefit;

2. That in so accepting or agreeing, th e defendant agreed not to report to law

enforcement authorities the commis sion or suspected commission of any

offense or information relating to an offense (or) not to seek prosecution

of an offense;

3. That the defendant acted purposely (2C:2-2(c)(3))

(CONFERS)

1. That the defendant conferred or agr eed to confer any pecuniary benefit

upon another;

2. That in so conferring or agreeing to confer, the defe ndant agreed that

someone else would refrain from reporting to law enforcement authorities

the commission or suspected commission of any offense or information

relating to an offense (or) from seeking prosecution of an offense;

3. That the defendant acted purposely.

COMPOUNDING

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-4

"Pecuniary benefit" is benefit in the form of money, property, commercial interests or

anything else, the primary signifi cance of which is economic gain to defendant or to any other

person or entity in whose welfare he/she is interested.

(If the defense of restitution or indemnification as set forth in 2C:29-4 is raised, insert the

following:)

The statute also provides that:

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that

the pecuniary benefit did not exceed an amount which the actor

reasonably believed to be due as restitution or indemnification

for harm caused by the offense.

(ACCEPTS)

The law provides that the defendant's accepta nce or agreement to accept restitution or

indemnification is a defense to the charge of compounding. The law does not seek to penalize

the victim of an offense who refrains from repo rting that offense because (he/she) accepted or

agreed to accept restitution or indemnification from the perpetrator. However, to constitute a

defense, the pecuniary benefit which he/she accepted or agreed to accept must not have exceeded

an amount which the defendant reasonably believe d to be due to him/her as restitution or

indemnification for harm caused by the offense.

The defendant, as part of hi s/her denial or guilt, raises the defense that the pecuniary

benefit he/she accepted or agreed to accept did not exceed an amount which he/she reasonably

believed to be due to him/her as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the offense.

This defense is a complete defense to the crim e charged. If you conclude that the State has

proved the crime of compounding beyond a reasonabl e doubt and only if you so conclude, then

you must consider the defense that the pecuni ary benefit accepted by the defendant, or which

he/she agreed to accept, did not exceed an amount which the defendant reasonably believed to be

due to him/her as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the offense. The law places

upon the State the burden of disproving the truth of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved the crime of compounding beyond a

reasonable doubt, but you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defense of restitution

or indemnification is true, then you must find the defendant not guilty of compounding. If you

conclude that the State has proved beyond a reas onable doubt both that the defendant committed

the crime of compounding and also that the defense of restitution or inde mnification is untrue,

COMPOUNDING

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-4

then you must find the defendant guilty of compounding.

(CONFERS)

The law provides that the defendant's conferring or agreeing to confer restitution or

indemnification is a defense to the charge of compounding. However, to constitute a defense the

pecuniary benefit which he/she conferred or agreed to confer must not have exceeded an amount

which the defendant reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or indemnification

for harm caused by the offense.

The defendant as part of his/her denial of guilt raises the defens e that the pecuniary

benefit he/she conferre d or agreed to confer upon the vi ctim did not exceed an amount which

he/she reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or indemnification for harm

caused by the offense. This defense is a complete defense to the crime charged. If you conclude

that the State has proved th e crime of compounding beyond a reasonable doubt and only if you

so conclude, then you must cons ider the defense that the pec uniary benefit conferred by the

defendant, or which he/she agr eed to confer, did not exceed an amount which the defendant

reasonably believed to be due to the victim as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by

the offense. The law then places upon the State the burden of disproving the truth of this defense

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved the crime of compounding beyond a

reasonable doubt, but you have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defense of restitution

or indemnification is true, then you must find the defendant not guilty of compounding. If you

conclude that the State has proved beyond a reas onable doubt both that the defendant committed

the crime of compounding and also that the defense of restitution or inde mnification is untrue,

then you must find the defendant guilty of compounding.

If you find that the State has proved all of the foregoing elements of the criminal offense

beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of compounding in the second

degree, unless the thing of value (a ccepted or agreed to be accepte d) (conferred or agreed to be

conferred) is any benefit of $200.00 or less, in which case you should find the defendant guilty

of compounding in the third degree. If the State has failed to prove any of the elements of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.