N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-5

Revised 5/4/09

RETALIATION FOR PAST OFFICIAL ACTION

(N.J.S.A. 2C:27-5)

The statute upon which this in dictment is based reads in pertinent part as follows:

A person commits a crime . . . if he harms another by any

unlawful act with purpose to retaliate for or on account of the

service of another as a public servant.

There are four elements of this offense th at the State must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt. They are:

(1) that defendant harmed another,

(2) that the harm was the result of an unlawful

act committed by

defendant,

(3) that defendant's purpose was to retaliate, and

(4) that the retaliation was for an official act done in the capacity of a

public servant.

Let me explain each of these elements:

First, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant harmed another, namely

________________________. "Harm" means any loss, disadvant age or injury, or anything so

regarded by the person a ffected. It includes loss, disadvantage or injury to any other person or

entity in whose welfare _______________________ is interested.1

Second, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed an

unlawful act which caused this harm. The unlawful act that the State alleges that defendant

committed is that of (insert offense). A person that another within the

meaning of the law commits an unlawful act. is defined elsewhere in our laws

as follows:____________________________________________________________________.

In short, with regard to the second element, the State must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that defendant committed an unlawful act, namely .

The third element the State must prove be yond a reasonable doubt is that defendant's

purpose in committing the unlawful act was to retaliate against .

1 N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1(c).

RETALIATION FOR PAST OFFICIAL ACTION

(N.J.S.A. 2C:27-5)

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. That is he/she means to do

what he/she does. "With purpose," "designed," "with design," or equivalent terms have the same

meaning. Purpose is a state of mind that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference

from conduct, words or acts. Therefore, it is not necessary that the St ate produce witnesses to

testify that a defendant said that he/she pur posely did something. His/Her purpose may be

gathered from his/her acts and conduct, from all that he/she said and di d at the particular time

and place, and from all the surrounding circumstan ces reflected in the testimony [and adduced at

trial].

Retaliation means to "pay back" or "get even" with another by inflicting harm on the

person for something that person did or is perceived to have done previously to the actor.

The fourth element the State must prove be yond a reasonable doubt is that the retaliation

was for a past official action done by a public official.

The State alleges that the prior action for which it claims defendant was retaliating was

________________________.

may be considered by you as an official action.

"Public servant" means any officer or employee of government. 2 The State claims

that was acting as when (he/she) .

To recap, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that defendant harmed another,

(2) that the harm was the result of an unlawful act committed by defendant,

(3) that defendant's purpose was to retaliate, and

(4) that the retaliation was for an offici al act done in the capacity of a public

servant.

If you find that the State has proven each and every one of these elements beyond a

reasonable doubt, you must find defendant guilty

.

2 See N.J.S.A. 2C:27-1(g) for complete definition.

RETALIATION FOR PAST OFFICIAL ACTION

(N.J.S.A. 2C:27-5)

If you find that the State has failed to prove any one of these elements beyond a

reasonable doubt, you must find defendant not guilty.