N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8(b)

Approved 6/14/04

IMPERSONATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8(b)

(Defendant) is charged with falsely pretending to hold a position as [CHOOSE AS

APPROPRIATE]: an officer, member, employee, or agent of [an organization or association of law

enforcement officers] with purpose to induce anot her to submit to such pretended authority or

otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense.

[READ APPROPRIATE COUNT OF INDICTMENT]

This charge is based upon a statute providing:

A person commits a crime … if he falsely pretends to hold a position

as [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] an officer or member or

employee or agent of any organization or association of law

enforcement officers with purpose to induce another to submit to

such pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon

that pretense.

For (defendant) to be guilty of this offens e, the State must prove each of the following

essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that (defendant) prete nded to hold a position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE]

officer, member, employee, or agent of any organization or association of law enforcement officers.

2. that that representation was false.

3. that at that time (defendant) knew that that information was false.

4. that at that time (defendant) provided that information with the purpose to induce

another to submit to such pretended official au thority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that

pretense.

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

IMPERSONATING A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8(b)

pretended to hold a position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer, member, employee, or

agent of any organization or association of law enforcement officers. Here, the State contends that

(defendant) pretended to hold a position as .

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that (defendant’s)

representation that he/she held a position as an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer, member,

employee, or agent of that organization or association was false; that is, at that time, (defendant) was

not an [CHOOSE AS APPROPRIATE] officer, member, employee, or agent of that organization

or association.

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

(defendant) made his representation, he/she knew that that representation was false. 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 act s 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 cause such a result.

One acts knowingly if one acts with knowledge, consciously, or if one comprehends his/her acts.

The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that, when

(defendant) made that representation, his/her pur pose was to induce another to submit to such

pretended official authority or otherwise to act in reliance upon that pretense. 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

IMPERSONATING A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8(b)

respect to attendant circumstances if he/she is aware of the existence of such circumstances or

believes or hopes that they exist. Someone acts purposely if he/she acts with design, with a purpose,

with a particular objective in mind, if he/she really means to do what he/she does. Here, the State

contends that (defendant’s) purpose was [summarize factual contention of State].

WHERE APPROPRIATE, ADD: Defendant contends that his/her purpose was

.

Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind. They cannot be seen. Often, they can be

determined only by inferences drawn from a defendant’s conduct, words or acts as presented in the

evidence you have heard and seen. So, it is not necessary that the State produce a witness or

witnesses to testify that (defe ndant) said, for example, that he/she acted purposely or knowingly

when he/she engaged in the conduct with which he /she is charged. You may find that proof of

purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may

draw from the nature of the acts and the circumstances surrounding the conduct in question as you

have heard from the evidence.

If the State has proven each of these el ements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find

(defendant) guilty of this charge. On the other hand, if the State has faile d to prove any of these

elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find (defendant) not guilty.