N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5b

Approved 3/25/02

ESCAPE - ABSCONDING FROM PAROLE

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5b)

In Count of the indictment, the defendant is charged with the crime of

absconding from parole.

(READ PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF INDICTMENT)

The defendant is accused of violating a secti on of our state statutes that reads as follows:

A person subject to parole commits a crime . . . if the person goes into

hiding or leaves the State with a purpose of avoiding supervision.

In order to convict the defendant of this cr ime, the State must prove all of the following

elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant was a person subject to parole;

2. The defendant went into hiding or left the State; and

3. The defendant acted with the purpose to avoid parole.

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

was a person subject to parole.

“Parole” is a period of supervised release by which the prisoner is allowed to serve the

final portion of his/her sent ence outside the gates of the institution on certain terms and

conditions, in order to prepare for his/her return to society.

1

The evidence that defendant was on parole has been introduced only for the specific,

narrow purpose of establishing that defendant was subject to parole. You must not speculate as to

the reasons why. You may not infer from this ev idence that defendant has a tendency to commit

crimes or that he/she is a bad person. You may not decide that, just because a defendant is

subject to parole, he/she must be guilty of this offense. The State’s evidence is offered only to

show that the defendant was subject to parole and may be used for no other purpose.

The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doub t is that while the

defendant was subject to parole, he/she went into hiding or left the Stat e. “Hiding” means to

conceal one’s whereabouts. It is not enough for th e State to prove only that the defendant failed

to keep appointments with his/her parole officer.

The third element the State must prove be yond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant

went into hiding or left the State with the sp ecific purpose of avoiding parole. A person acts

purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her conscious

1 State v. Oquendo, 262 N.J. Super. 317, 324 (App. Div. 1992), quoting In re Clover, 34 N.J. Super. 181, 188

(App. Div. 1955), rev’d on other grounds, 133 N.J . 416 (1993). The statute also applies to participants in the

Intensive Supervision Program (ISP).

ESCAPE-ABSCONDING FROM PAROLE

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5b)

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. “With purpose,” “designed,” “with design” or equivalent

terms have the same meaning.2

The term purposefully refers to conditions of the mind that cannot be seen. It is not

necessary for the State to prove th e existence of such a mental st ate by direct evidence such as a

statement by the defendant that he/she had a pa rticular purpose. A purposeful state of mind must

ordinarily be discovered from circumstantial ev idence; that is, by reference to the defendant’s

conduct, words or acts, and all of the surrounding circumstances.

[CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE]

If you find that the defendant abandoned hi s/her approved place of residence without

prior permission of his/her parole officer, or notice to the appropr iate supervising authority, then

you may infer, if you find it proper to do so, that his/her purpose was to avoid parole.

An inference is a deduction of fact that may be drawn logically and reasonably from

another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. Whether or not an inference should be

drawn is for you to decide using your own co mmon sense, knowledge and everyday experience.

Ask yourself, is it probable, logical and reas onable. However, you are never required or

compelled to draw an inference. You alone decide whether the facts and circumstances shown by

the evidence support an inference, and you are always free to draw or not to draw an inference. If

you draw an inference, you should weigh it in conn ection with all the other evidence in the case,

keeping in mind that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove all of the elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

To reiterate, the three elements that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are:

1. The defendant was a person subject to parole;

2. The defendant went into hi ding or left the State; and

3. The defendant acted with the purpose to avoid parole.

If you find that the State has proven all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then

you must return a verdict of guilty. On the ot her hand, if you find that the State has failed to

prove any one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must return a verdict of not

guilty.

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