N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1

Revised 10/23/00

OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF LAW OR OTHER

GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION

(N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1)

[Where crime occurred before April 28, 2000]

[Count

of] [T]he indictment charges th e defendant with obstructing the

administration of law or other governmental function. That section of our statutes provides that

A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs, or

perverts the administration of la w or other governmental function

or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully

performing an official function by means of intimidation, force,

violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any

independently unlawful act. In or der to find the defendant guilty

of this offense, the State must prove each of the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that the defendant

(a) committed an act of intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or

obstacle

OR

(b) committed an unlawful act [WHERE APPLICABLE: as charged in count

of the indictment];

(2) that the act was committed for the purpose of

(a) obstructing, impairing, or perverting the administration of law or other

governmental function

OR

(b) preventing a public servant from lawf ully performing an official function; and

(3) that in committing the act, th e defendant did [OR attempted to]

(a) obstruct, impair, or pervert the administration of law or other governmental

function

OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF LAW

OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1

[Where crime occurred before April 28, 2000]

OR

(b) prevent a public servant from la wfully performing an official function.

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

defendant committed

(a) an act of intimidat ion, force, violence, or physical interference or

obstacle. In other words, the State must prove that the defendant

affirmatively did something to interfere or place an obstacle to prevent the

public servant from performing an official function. 1 Specifically, the

State alleges that the defendant committed the act of .

OR

(b) an unlawful act: in other words, an act that is, without regard to its

purpose to obstruct justice, already

declared illegal.2 In this case, the State

alleges that the defendant committed the unlawful act of . I have

already defined the elements of that crime (or will define the elements of

that crime) in my instructions concerning count

.3] You cannot find

the defendant guilty of obstructing the administration of law or other

governmental function unless you find him/her guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt of having committed this unlawf ul act [OR the crime charged in

count

].

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

defendant committed the unlawful act(s) for the purpose of [obstructing, impairing, or perverting

the administration of law or other governmental function] OR [preventing a public servant from

1 State v. Berlow, 284 N.J. Super. 356, 360 (Law Div. 1995).

2 II Commentary, Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission , N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1,

comment 4, page 282 (1971). See also State v. Perlstein, 206 N.J. Super. 215, 222 (App. Div. 1980).

3 This alternative instruction is included for use in those cases in which the State’s theory is that the only act

of obstruction or interference the defendant is alleged to have committed is also a crime that is the subject of a

separate count in the indictment on which the defendant is being tried. See, for instance, State v. Branch , 155 N.J.

317, 328 (1998) (referring to Model Criminal Jury Charge on “Felony Murder – Slayer Participant” [January 27,

1997]); State v. Grey, 147 N.J. 4, 17 (1996).

OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF LAW

OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1

[Where crime occurred before April 28, 2000]

lawfully performing an official function].

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

of such circumstances or he/she believes or hopes that they exist.

Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only by

inferences from conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof but

must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce

witnesses to testify that an accu sed said that he/she had a certa in state of mind when he/she

engaged in a particular act. It is within your pow er to find that such proof has been furnished

beyond a reasonable doubt by inference, which may arise from the nature of defendant’s acts and

conduct, from all that he/she said and did at the particular time and place, and from all

surrounding circumstances.

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

committing the act, the defendant did (OR attempted to

4)

(a) obstruct, impair, or pervert the administration of law or the official

governmental function of .

OR

(b) prevent a public servant from

lawfully performing an official function. A

public servant means any officer or empl oyee of government. In this case, the

State alleges that the defendant prevented (or attempted to prevent) a [choose

applicable title set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1g] from lawfully performing the

official function of .

[CHARGE WHEN APPLICABLE: You cannot find the defendant guilty of this

charge if he/she and a public servant engaged in a private altercation that happens to

4 When an attempt to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function is alleged, or

when attempt to commit the obstructing act is charged pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, include the Model Jury Charge

on the definition of attempt.

OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF LAW

OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1

[Where crime occurred before April 28, 2000]

occur at a time when the victim is engaged in official duties.5]

[CHARGE WHEN APPLICABLE: You cannot find the defendant guilty of this charge

if he/she fled or refused to submit to arrest.6]

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

then you must find the defendant not guilty. If the State has proven each element of this offense

beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.

[WHEN GRADING OF THE OFFENSE IS AT ISSUE, CHARGE AS FOLLOWS]

If you find the defendant guilty of obstr ucting the administration of law or other

governmental function, you must go on and dete rmine whether the State has proven beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant has obstructed the investigation or detection of a crime, or

prosecution of a person for a crime. In this case, the State allege s that the defendant obstructed

the identification, detection, or prosecu tion of for the crime of . If you find

that the State has proven th is allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the

defendant guilty of obstruction of the investigation or detection of a crime, or prosecution of a

person for a crime. If the State has failed to prove this allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, you

must find the defendant not guilty of obstructing the i nvestigation or detec tion of a crime, or

prosecution of a person for a crime, but guilty of obstructing the administration of law or other

governmental function.

5 1971 Commentary, supra, comment 3, pages 281-282.

6 State v. Garrison, 230 N.J. Super. 609, 615 (App. Div. 1989). But see Perlstein, 206 N.J. Super. at 254-255,

which held that this exception does not apply to an investigative detention short of an arrest, i.e., “a stop for a motor

vehicle violation [that] does not necessarily constitute an arrest.” A similar instruction should be given if the case

raises the issue of whether the defendant failed “to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or [committed]

any other means of avoiding compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions,”

which are specifically excluded from the scope of N.J.S.A

. 2C:29-1.