N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1)

Revised 3/22/04

RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER

(N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1)

The defendant is charged 1 by indictment with the crim e of reckless manslaughter. The

indictment reads as follows:

(Read the appropriate count of indictment)

A person is guilty of reckless manslaughter if he/she recklessly causes the death of

another person.

In order for you to find the defendant gui lty of reckless manslaughter, the State is

required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and

(2) that the defendant did so recklessly.

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

acted recklessly.

2

1 If manslaughter is to be charged as a lesser included offense under an indictment charging murder, the

manslaughter charge is incorporat ed in the murder/manslaughter char ge and the appropriate charge on

murder/manslaughter should be utilized.

2 Note that where it is alleged that the defendant cause d the death of another by operating a motor vehicle or

vessel, death by auto or vessel “shall be considered a lesser-included offense” under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5d. In such a

case, see the charge on Death by Auto (or Vessel) ( N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5), and include in this portion of the charge, as

well as in the subsequent charge on death by auto (or vessel), the following language distinguishing the two

offenses:

It is important that you understand the difference between reckless manslaughter and the lesser-included offense of

death by auto (or vessel), for which I will soon be providing you with additional instructions. Reckless manslaughter

requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove his/her vehicle (or vessel) recklessly, and also

that he/she engaged in additional acts of recklessness, independent of his/her operation of the vehicle (or vessel),

that contributed to the victim’s death. Death by auto (or vessel), on the other hand, only requires proof beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly drove his/her vehicle (or vessel), causing the death of another, and it

requires no additional acts of recklessness. Here, the State alleges the following additional acts of recklessness:

(INSERT APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE ON THE FACTS, SUMMARIZE

DEFENDANT’S FACTUAL CONTENTIONS AS WELL)

Whether the defendant was reckless in his/her operation of the motor vehicle (or vessel) and/or whether the

defendant was additionally reckless as alleged by the State is for you the jury to decide based on the evidence in the

case. It is only where you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in fact reckless both in

the operation of the motor vehicle (or vessel) and in th e additional manner as alleged by the State that you may

convict the defendant of the charge of reckless manslaughter.

State v. Jimenez

, 257 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div. 1992).

RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1)

A person who causes another's death does so recklessly when he/she is aware of and

consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifi able risk that death will result from his/her

conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considerin g the nature and purpose

of defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to defendant, his/her disregard of that risk is

a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in the same

situation.3

In other words, you must find that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded

the risk of causing death. If you find that defe ndant was aware of and disregarded the risk of

causing death, you must determine whether that risk that he/she disregar ded was substantial and

unjustifiable. In doing so, you must consider th e nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and

the circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light of those factors,

defendant's disregard of that risk was a gros s deviation from the conduct a reasonable person

would have observed in defendant's situation.4

(Summarize, if helpful, all of the evidence relevant to recklessness, including any

contrasting accounts of events by the defense and the State.)5

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

4 This expanded explanation of recklessness is adapted from the following portion of the Code Commentary:

The Code requires, however, that the risk thus consciously disregarded by the actor be substantial and

unjustifiable; even substantial risks may be created without recklessness when the actor seeks to serve a proper

purpose. Accordingly, to aid the ultimate determination, the Code points expressly to the factors to be weighed in

judgment: the nature and degree of the risk disregarded by the actor, the nature and purpose of his conduct and the

circumstances known to him in acting.

Some principle must be articulated, however, to indicate what final judgment is demanded after everything is

weighed. There is no way to state this value-judgment that does not beg the question in the last analysis. The point

is that the jury must evaluate the conduct and determine whether it should be condemned. The Code, therefore,

proposes that this difficulty be resolved by asking the jury whether the defendant's conduct involved a gross

deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable pe rson would observe. This seems to us to be the most

appropriate way to put the issue to a jury. (2 Final Re port of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission,

Commentary (1971) at 42.)

5 In State v. Concepcion , 111 N.J. 373, 380-381 (1988), the Supreme Court reversed the defendant's

conviction of reckless manslaughter because the trial ju dge had selectively summarized only one aspect of the

critical events and had failed to explain that the jury must make a prelim inary finding resolving contrasting factual

accounts of events.

RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1)

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

defendant caused (insert victim's name) death.

(If causal relationship between conduct a nd result is not an issue, charge the

following:)

You must find that (insert victim's name) would not have died but for defendant's

conduct.6

(If causal relationship between conduct and result is an issue, charge the

fo ng:) 7

Causation has a special meaning under the la w. To establish cau

llow

i

sation, the State m

ust

pected or unusual that it

ould be unjust to find the defendant guilty of reckless manslaughter.8

prove two elem

ents, each beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that but for the defendant's c onduct, the victim would not have died.

Second, (insert victim's name) death must have been within the risk of which the

defendant was aware. If not, it must involve the same kind of in jury or harm as the probable

result of the defendant's conduct and must al so not be too remote, too accidental in its

occurrence, or too dependent on another's volitional act to have a just bearing on the defendant's

liability or on the gravity of his/her offense. In other words, the State must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that (insert victim's name) death was not so unex

w

[NOTE: In cases

where Causation - Removal of Life Support is an issue, the jury

should be instructed a

s follows:

You have heard testim ony that on [date], (insert victim’s name) was taken off life

6 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(a)(1).

7 State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 377 (1988); N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3c.

8 State v. Martin, 119 N.J. at 33.

RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1)

from life support a nd then expired, unless there

ntras

ting factual theories of causation, each

version should be summarized

sed (inser

t victim's name) death, then your verdict must be

(insert victim's name) death, you must

nd the defendant not guilty of reckless manslaughter.

support and that he/she died at some point after this wa s done. Should you find beyond a

reasonable doubt that (insert victim’s name) died from medical complications that resulted from

injuries caused by defendant’s actions, the re moval of life support, in this case (method of

removal), is not an intervening cause that relie ves defendant of any criminal liability for those

actions.9 That is, if defendant’s actions set in motion (insert victim’s name) need for life

support, without which death would result natu rally, then the causal lin k between defendant’s

action and the death of (insert victim’s name) was not broken by an unforeseen, extraordinary

act when (insert victim’s name) was removed

was an intervening volitional act of another.]10

(Where the defendant and State offer co

for the jury.11)

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

If after consideration of all the evidence you are convi nced beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant recklessly cau

guilty of reckless manslaughter.

If, however, after consideration of a ll the evidence you are not convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt that the de fendant recklessly caused

fi

9 State v. Pelham, 176 N.J. 448, 455-456 and n. 2 (2003).

10 Pelham, 176 N.J. at 467.

11 State v. Martin, 119 N.J. at 18.