N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3

Approved 2/14/05

FALSE IMPRISONMENT-LESSER INCLUDED1

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3)

The defendant is charged in the indictment with the crime of criminal restraint. If you

find the defendant not guilty of criminal restra int, you should go on to consider the included

offense of false imprisonment.

The statute upon which the charge is base d reads in pertinent part as follows:

A person is guilty of false imprisonment if he knowingly . . .

(a) Restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere

substantially with his/her liberty.

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

following elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the defendant restrained [name of victim]

;

2. That the restraint was unlawful;

3. That the restraint interfered substantially with [name of victim’s]

liberty; and

4. The defendant acted knowingly.

The first element that the State must pr ove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the

defendant restrained [name of victim] . The word “restraint” means confinement, abridgement

or limitation. Restraint involves hindrance, confinement or restriction of liberty.2

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

restraint was unlawful.

1 This charge is intended for use in connection with the model charges of Criminal

Restraint N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2a.

2 Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition, rev.) p. 1477.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3)

[If the person restrained is over the age of 14 and not incompetent, use the following

definition]:

The term “unlawful” means to accomplish the restraint by force, threat or deception.3

[If the person restrained is under the age of 14 or incompetent, use the following

definition]:

The term “unlawful” means to accomplish the restraint without the consent of the parent,

guardian or other person responsible for the general supervision of (his/her) welfare.4

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

interfered substantially with [name of victim’s] liberty. Whether the

interference with a victim is s ubstantial is for you to decide. A “substantial interference” is one

that is significant. If the victim is rest rained only slightly, and such restraint does not

substantially interfere w ith his/her liberty, then you must not convict the defendant of the false

imprisonment charge. In determining whet her the interference was substantial, you may

consider the duration and manner of restraint, and all other re levant facts and circumstances

before you.

“Liberty” means the state or fact of being free. It is freedom from external restraint or

compulsion of power, to do as one pleases.

5

3 See N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1d.

4 See N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1d.

5 Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2 nd Edition Unabridged (1957).

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3)

With regard to each of these elements, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant acted knowingly. A person acts knowingly with 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 a high probability of their existence. A

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

practically certain that his/her conduct will ca use such a result. “Knowing,” “with knowledge”

or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

Knowledge is a condition of the mind, which cannot be seen and can only be determined

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

of direct proof, but must ordina rily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that

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

when he/she engaged in a particul ar act. It is within your power to find that such proof has been

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

acts and his/her conduct, and from all he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and

from all of the surrounding circ umstances reflected in the testimony [and evidence adduced at

trial].

If after a consideration of all of the ev idence you are convinced beyond a reasonable

doubt that the State has proven all four elements of the offense, then you must find the defendant

guilty.

If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3)

[AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – CHARGE IF APPLICABLE]

Defendant contends that [name of alleged victim] was a child, less than eighteen years

old, that he/she was a rela tive or legal guardian of [name], and that his/her sole purpose in

restraining [name] was to assume control of the child. I have already defined purpose for you.

It is the State’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name] was not a child, less than

eighteen years old, or that defendant was not a rela tive or legal guardian of [name], or that

defendant's purpose in restraining [name] was not solely to assume control of the child.

If you find that the State has proven all four elements of this offense beyond a reasonable

doubt, and you find that the State ha s proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [name] was not a

child, less than eighteen years old, or that defendant was not a relativ e or legal guardian of

[name], or that defendant’s purpose in restraining [name] was not solely to assume control of

the child, you must find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the State has

failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the State has failed to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that [name] was not a child, less than eighteen years old, or that

defendant was not a relativ e or legal guardian of [name] , or that defendant’s purpose in

restraining [name] was not solely to assume control of the child, you must find the defendant not

guilty.