N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3a(7))

Approved 11/13/06

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION

OR IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.

N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(7)

Count ____ of the indictment charges de fendant with committing the offense of

criminal mischief by (insert allegation of indictment ). In pertinent part, the indictment

alleges that

(Read material part of Count ____ to jury)

Defendant is charged with violating a provi sion of our law that provides that a person

is guilty of criminal mischief if he/she purposely or knowingly causes a substantial

interruption or impairment of public communication/transportation/supply of water, oil, gas or

power/or other public service.

In order to convict defendant of this offense, you must find that the State has proved

beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following three elements:

1

1. That (name of entity ) is a provider of public communication/transportation/

supply of water, oil, gas or power/other public service;

2. That defendant caused a substantial in terruption or substan tial impairment of

public communication/transportation/supply of wate r, oil, gas or power/other public service

(specify) provided by (name of entity).

3. That defendant acted purposely or knowingly.

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

entity) is a provider of public co mmunication/transportation/supply of water, oil, gas or

power/other public service.

The second element that the State mu st prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that

defendant caused a substantial interruptio n or a substantial impairment of public

[communication

] [transportation] [supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public

service] provided by ( name of entity ). The term “substantial” means an ample or

1 The form of the offense defined here is a third degree crime. The second degree version of the offense

contains additional elements and is considered within.

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL

INTERRUPTION OR IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC

COMMU

NICATION, ETC.

(N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(7))

considerable amount.2 The term “interruption” means action in opposition or to hamper the

operation of something. 3 The term “impairment” means damage or a worsening of the

condition, value, strength or quality of something.4

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

defendant purposely or knowingly caused such substantial interrup tion or substantial

impairment. A defendant acts purposely with re spect to the nature of his/her conduct or a

result thereof if it is his/her c onscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause

such a result. A defendant acts purposely with respect to attendant circum stances if he/she is

aware of the existence of such circumstan ces or believes or hopes that they exist. 5 In other

words, for you to find that defendant ac ted purposely, you must be satisfied beyond a

reasonable doubt that it was defe ndant’s purpose or conscious object to cause a substantial

interruption or a substantial impairment of public [communication] [transportation]

[supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service] provided by ( name of

entity) when he/she engaged in the conduct alleged.

A defendant acts knowingly with respect to the nature of hi s/her conduct or the

attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that hi s/her conduct is of that nature, or that such

circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A defendant

acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if defe ndant is aware that it is

practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. 6 In other words, for you to

find that defendant acted know ingly, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that

defendant knew what he/she was doing, and th at defendant was aware that the nature of

his/her conduct and the a ttendant circumstances were such as to make it practically certain

that his/her conduct would cause a substantial interference or a substantial impairment of

2 See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, (2 ed., unabridged).

3 See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, (2 ed., unabridged).

4 See The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, (2 ed., unabridged).

5 See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(1).

6 See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL

INTERRUPTION OR IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC

COMMU

NICATION, ETC.

(N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(7))

public [communication] [transportation] [supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified

public service] provided by (name of entity) when he/she engaged in the conduct alleged.

You should understand that purpose or knowledge is a condition of the mind. It

cannot be seen. It can only be determined by inferences fr om conduct, words or acts.

Therefore, it is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that defendant

stated, for example, that he/she acted with pur pose or knowledge when he/she did a particular

thing. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose or knowledge has been furnished

beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of the acts and the

surrounding circumstances. The place where the act s occurred and all that was done or said

by defendant preceding, connected with, and immediately succeeding the events in question

are among the circumstances to be considered.

If you find that the State has failed to pr ove beyond a reasonable doubt any element of

the offense of criminal mischief, you must fi nd defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if

you find that the State has proven beyond a reasona ble doubt every element of the offense,

you must find defendant guilty of criminal mischief.

[THIS CONCLUDES THE CHARGE IF TH E INDICTMENT ALLEGES ONLY THE

THIRD DEGREE FORM OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF UNDER THE STATUTE.

CHARGE AS FOLLOWS IF SUBMI TTING TO THE JURY THE 2

ND DEGREE

OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF RESULTING IN DEATH AS WELL.]7

If you have found defendant guilty of the o ffense of criminal mischief, you must then

continue your deliberations to consider the mo re serious offense of criminal mischief causing

death. Regarding this offense, you must determine whether the State has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt two additional elements:

7 If a verdict sheet is to be submitted to the jury in connection with criminal mischief/criminal mischief

causing death charges, that verdict sheet must clearly indicate that the crim inal mischief causing death charge is

to be considered if, and only if, the jury is first satisfied that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the

first three elements of criminal mischief under N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(b)(7). If the State has failed to prove the

underlying charge, the jury must find defendant not guilty of criminal mischief and is not to consider the

criminal mischief causing death charge.

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF – CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL

INTERRUPTION OR IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC

COMMUNICATION, ETC.

(N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(7))

4. That defendant’s interrupt ion or impairment of public [communication]

[transportation] [supply of water/oil/gas/power] [other specified public service] caused

the death of (name of deceased); and

5. That defendant acted reck lessly in causing this death.

Regarding the fourth element, the St ate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the

death of ( name of deceased ) and that (name’s) death was caused by the interruption or

impairment of public [communication] [transportation] [supply of water/oil/gas/power]

[other specified public service] that resulted from defendant’s conduct.

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

defendant acted recklessly in causing this deat h. A defendant acts re cklessly when he/she

consciously disregards a substa ntial and unjustifiable risk. A conscious disregard requires

that defendant actually be aware of the risk, but that he/she ignores it anyway. The risk must

be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct

and the circumstances known to him/her, its di sregard involves a gross deviation from the

standard of conduct that a reasonable pers on would observe in the same situation. 8 In other

words, for you to find that defendant acte d recklessly, you must be satisfied beyond a

reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of and disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable

risk that his/her conduct would cause the death of another person.

If you find that the State has failed to pr ove beyond a reasonable doubt any element of

criminal mischief causing death, you must find defendant not guilty of that offense. If,

however, you find that the State has proved be yond a reasonable doubt every element of the

offense, you must find defendant guilty of criminal mischief causing death.

8 If causing death had been defendant’s purpose or intention when causing substantial interruption or

impairment of public communication/transportation/etc., defendant would also be exposed to prosecution under

homicide statutes. Reckless conduct which causes death is also prosecutable as a homicide (manslaughter). See

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and 4.