N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. Non 2C

Approved 4/13/92

STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT (WHERE ADMISSIBLE

FOR CREDIBILITY PURPOSES ONLY)1

We have in this case an oral/w ritten statement (MARKED EXHIBIT )

alleged to have been made by the defendant.

This statement has been introduced by the prosecution not as evidence of defendant's

guilt of the crime charged, but to affect his/her credibility on condition that the jury first

determine that the statement was made.

(HERE DISCUSS THE STATEMENT)

So you can see ladies and gentlemen of the ju ry, prior to your considering this statement

for the limited purposes of affecting the defendant's credibility as a witness, you must determine

whether the statement was actually given. In considering whether or not the statement was made

by the defendant you may take into considera tion the circumstances and facts surrounding the

giving of the statement.

(HERE DISCUSS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING

THE GIVING OF THE STATEMENT)

If you find that the statement was not made th en you must not consider it for any purpose.

If you find that only part of the statement was ma de then you may only consider that part as it

may affect defendant's credibility.

If you find that the statemen t was made it may be consider ed solely to determine the

defendant's credibility if you believe it does, in fact, affect such credibility and not as evidence of

his/her guilt. In this regard in all fairness you will want to consider all of the circumstances

1 See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L. Ed . 2d 1 (1971); State v. Kimbrough , 109 N.J.

Super. 57 (App. Div. 1970); State v. Hampton , 61 N.J. 250 (1972); State v. Miller , 67 N.J. 229 (1975); Oregon v.

Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1975).

NOTES:

(1) State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229, 233 (1975) interpreting Harris, holds that:

An in-custody statement taken from an accused by the police without first

complying with the Miranda rule is not admissible in evidence as part of the

State's main case. However, if it otherwise satisfies standards of admissibility, it

may be used to impeach the defendant' s credibility as a w itness should the

defendant take the witness stand and give testimony which is at variance with

what was said in the statement to the police. But the jury should be instructed as

to the limited consideration it may give to the statement and its contents.

(2) See also Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 43 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1975).

STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT (WHERE ADMISSIBLE

FOR CREDIBILITY PURPOSES ONLY)

under which the claimed prior inconsistent statement occurred; the extent and importance or lack

of importance of the inconsistency on the overall testimony of the defendant as bearing on

his/her credibility, including such factors as where and when the prior statement occurred and the

reasons, if any, therefore.2

The extent to which defendant's credibility is affected by such inconsistencies, if any, is

for you to determine. Consider the materiality and relationship of such contradictions to the

entire testimony and all the evidence in the case.

2 If voluntariness is an issue charge accordingly. See Model Criminal Charge on Statements of Defendant.