N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6

Revised 10/18/10

LURING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6)

The defendant is charged in Count of the indictment with luring.

[Read Count of Indictment]

The statute upon which this Count of the Indictme nt is based states in pertinent part that:

A person is guilty of luring if he attempts, via electronic or any

other means, to lure or entice a child or one who he reasonably

believes to be a child into a motor vehicle, structure or isolated

area, or to meet or appear at any other place, with a purpose to

commit a criminal offense with or against the child.

To find defendant guilty of this crime, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

these elements:

1. That

(name) was a child

OR

1. That defendant reasonably believed that (name) was a child.

2. That defendant attempted to lure or entice (name) into a motor vehicle, structure

or isolated area or to meet or appear at any other place; and

3. That defendant had a purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the

child.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is [choose one]

[that (name) was a child] [that defendant reasonably believed that (name) was a child]. A

“child” means any person under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the offense.

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

attempted1, via electronic or other means, to lure or entice (name) into [Choose appropriate] [a

motor vehicle], [a structure] [an isolated area], [meeting or appearing at any other place].

1 Child luring does not involve an attempt to commit some other substantive offense. State

v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540, 551 (2003). Rather, like the eluding and witness tampering statutes, the

mere act of trying to entice a child is criminalized. Id. at 550-51. See also State v. Mendez, 345

N.J. Super . 498, 506 (App. Div. 20 01), aff’d 175 N.J . 201 (2002). Thus, the attempt statute,

N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, is not implicated, State v. Perez, 177 N.J. at 553, and need not be charged to the

jury.

LURING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6)

“Attempted” means “to try.”

“Lure” or “Entice” means to attract, tempt, induce or coax.2

“Motor vehicle” means all vehicles prope lled other than by muscular power, except

vehicles that run only on rail s or tracks. Motor vehicle includes motorcycles, motorized

bicycles, trailers and tractors.3

“Electronic means” includes, but is not limite d to the Internet. “Internet” means the

international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched

data networks.

4

“Structure” means any building, room, ship, ve ssel or airplane and also means any place

adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or

not a person is actually present.5

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant’s

purpose was to commit a criminal offense. “Cri minal offense” means a breach or violation of

the criminal laws by conduct for which a defendant could be sent to jail for more than six

months. Here, the State alleges that the defendant’s purpose was to _______________________

which is an offense for which a defendant could be sent to jail for more than six months. You

must not rely upon your own notions of the unlawfulness of some other undescribed purpose of

defendant; rather, you must cons ider whether the State has prove n the specific unlawful purpose

charged.

6 The unlawful purpose alleged by the State may be inferred from all that was said or

done and from all of the surrounding circumstances of this case.7

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

2 Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third Co llege Edition (1988); Black’s Law Dictionary

(5th ed. 1979), p. 477 (defining entice).

3 N.J.S.A. 39:10-2.

4 N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(1).

5 N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6.

6 State v. Olivera, 344 N.J. Super. 583, 592, 594 (App. Div. 2001).

7 Cf. State v. Petties, 139 N.J. 310, 316 (1995).

LURING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6)

person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if the individual is aware of the

existence of such circumstances or the individu al believes or hopes that they exist. “With

purpose,” “designed,” “with design” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

The term purposely is a condition of the mi nd. A condition of the mind cannot be seen.

It can only be determined by inferences from de fendant’s conduct, words or acts. A state of

mind is rarely susceptible of di rect proof but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts.

Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produ ce witnesses to testify that an accused said that

he/she had a certain state of mind when he/she did a particular thi ng. It is within your power to

find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which may arise

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

and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.

If the State has failed to prove any elem ent of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you

must find defendant not guilty of luring or enticing the child. If, however, the State has proved

each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find defe ndant guilty of luring

or enticing the child.