N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2

Revised 3/14/16

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2)

(Defendant) is charged with endangering an injured person 1, (name), on (date). This

conduct is prohibited by a statute providing:

A person is guilty of endangering an injured victim if he causes

bodily i njury to any person or solicits, aids, encourages, or

attempts or agrees to aid another, who causes bodily injury to any

person, and leaves the scene of the injury knowing or reasonably

believing that the injured person is physically helpless, mentally

incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself.

To find (defendant) guilty of endangering an injured person, the State must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:

[Choose appropriate category]

1. That he/she

a. knowingly caused bodily injury to another,

Or

b. knowingly solicited, aided, encouraged, purposely

attempted or knowingly agreed to aid another person in

causing bodily injury to the victim2;

2. That the injured person was physically helpless, mentally

incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for

himself/herself; and

1 The statute used the term “victim” in subsection a, the word “person” in subsection b, and the

word “victim” in subsection c. “Person” has been used to refer to the injured party here where the statute

is not directly quoted in orde r to avoid any emotional connotation which might flow from repeating the

word “victim.”

2 In State v. Munafo, 222 N.J. 480 (2015), the Court specifically noted that the mental state for this

crime is “knowingly,” as required by the gap filler provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c). Id. at 489, 493 . An

attempt crime, however, requires a “purposeful” state of mind. Cf. State v. McAllister , 211 N.J. Super.

355, 362 (App. Div. 1986). Therefore, if attempt is alleged, then the court must instruct the jury on the

definition of purposeful conduct.

Furthermore, the Munafo Court approved of counsels’ decision not to read or discuss those

portions of the statute that were not involved in the case ( i.e., “solicited, aided, encouraged, attempted or

agreed to aid another…”) . Id. at 485 n.1. Therefore, the Committee suggests that counsel and the court

tailor the charge to the specific acts alleged in the indictmen t or as adduced at the trial . In other words,

the court should only read those portions of section 1b that are a lleged in the indictment or as adduced at

the trial.

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2

3. That he/she left the scene of the injury knowing or

reasonably believing that the injured person was physically

helpless, mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to

care for himself/herself.

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

[choose appropriate language] knowingly caused bodily injury to another or knowingly

solicited, aided, encouraged, or purposely attempted or knowingly agreed to aid a third person in

causing bodily injury to another. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness, or impairment of

physical condition.

As to causation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, but for

(defendant’s) conduct, the victim would not have suffered bodily injury.

[Choose if appropriate]

As to soliciting, aiding, encouraging, or attempting or agreeing to aid a third person in

causing bodily injury to another, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

(defendant) solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted or agreed to endanger another person or

solicited, aided, encouraged, or attempted to aid another in doing so. It does not matter whether

(defendant) actually caused such injury. A person is guilty of an attempt if he/she purposely

does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would

believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct

planned to culminate in the commission of a crime.

[If “knowing” conduct is involved, read the following]

A person acts knowingly when he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her

conduct will cause bodily injury. A person acts knowingly w ith 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 he/she is aware of the high probability of their existence. A

person acts knowingly as to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically

certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge, ” or

equivalent terms have the same meaning.

Knowledge is a condition of the mind. It cannot be seen. It can only be determined by

inference from the defendant’s conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of

direct proof but must ordinarily be inferred from th e facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2

State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind

when he/she did a particular thing. It is within your power to find that such pro of has been

furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of his/her

acts and conduct and from all he/she said an did at the particular time and place and from all

surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.

[If “purposeful” conduct is involved (i.e., if attempt is alleged), read the following]

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 is aware of the existence

of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.

Purpose is a condition of the mind. It cannot be seen. It can only be determined by

inference from the defendant’s 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 an accused said that he/she had a certain state of mind

when he/she did a particular thing. 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 his/her

acts and conduct and from all he/she said an did at the particular time and place and from all

surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.

[Resume Main Charge: Charge in All Cases]

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

person who suffered bodily injury was [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] physically helpless, or

mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time.

“Physically helpless” means the condition in which a person is unconscious, unable to

flee, or physically unable to summon assistance.3

“Mentally incapacitated” means that condition in which a person is rend ered temporarily

or permanently incapable of understanding or controlling one’s conduct, or of appraising or

controlling one’s condition, which incapacity shall include but is not limited to an inability to

comprehend one’s own peril.4

3 N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(b)(1).

4 N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(b)(2).

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2

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

(defendant) left the scene of the injury knowing or reasonably believing that the injured person

was [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or

otherwise unable to c are for himself/herself at that time. The State need not prove defendant’s

flight increased the risk that further harm would come to the victim.5

[CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]

It is an affirmative defense to the crime that (defendant) summoned medical treatment

for (the injured person) or knew that medical treatment had been summoned by another person

and protected (the injured person) from further injury or harm until emergency assistance

personnel arrived. (Defendant) must prove this d efense by a preponderance of the evidence -

that is to say, the greater weight of the credible evidence (or evidence that is more probable,

more persuasive, or of greater probative value). For (defendant) to prove this defense, the

evidence supporting it must weigh more heavily in your minds and be more convincing than the

evidence opposing it. The burden of proof is sustained by the quality of the evidence, not the

quantity.

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

If the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) [choose appropriate

phrase: knowingly caused bodily injury to (the injured person) , or knowingly solicited, aided,

encouraged, or purposely attempted or knowingly agreed to aid another in causing bodily injury

to (the injured person) , and he/she knew or reasonably believed that (that [injured] person) was

physically helpless, or mentally incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at

that time, [CHARGE AS APPLICABLE: and (defendant) has not proved by a preponderance

of the evidence that he/she summoned medical treatment for the injured person or knew that

medical treatment had been summoned by another person, and that he/she protected the victim

from further injury until emergency assista nce arrived], you must find him/her guilty of

endangering an injured person.

However, if the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of

the elements of the crime, that (defendant) [choose appropriate phrase: knowingly caused

bodily injury to (the person), or knowingly solicited, aided, encouraged, or purposely attempted

5 State v. Munafo, supra, 222 N.J. at 489-93.

ENDANGERING INJURED VICTIM

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2

or knowingly agreed to aid another in causing bodily injury to (the injured person), and he/she

knew or reasonably believed that (that [injured] person) was physically helpless, or mentally

incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for himself/herself at that time, injured, [CHARGE

AS APPLICABLE: or if (defendant) has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she

summoned medical treatment for the injured person or knew that medical treatment had been

summoned by another person, and that he/she protected the victim from further injury until

emergency assistance arrived], you must find him/her not guilty.