N.J. Model Criminal Jury Charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22a

Approved 12/3/01

CAUSING DEATH WHILE OPERATING ON THE REVOKED/SUSPENDED LIST

(N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22a)

In Count of this indictment, the defendant is charged with the crime of causing the

death of another while operating a motor vehicle with a revoked or suspended driver’s license.

The indictment alleges:

(READ APPROPRIATE COUNT OF INDICTMENT)

The defendant is accused of viol ating a section of our statutes that makes it a crime for a

person who is operating a motor vehicle with a revoked or suspended driver’s license to be

involved in an accident that results in the death of another.

In order for you to find the defendant guilt y, the State must prove each of the following

elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the defendant’s license was suspended or revoked; 1

2. That the defendant knew that his/ her license was suspended or revoked;

3. That the defendant knowingly operated a motor vehicle; and

4. That the defendant’s operation resulted in the death of another.

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

defendant’s license was suspende d or revoked. A motorist’s li cense is suspended or revoked

from the time that the Division of Motor Vehicles or a court su spends or revoke s that license

until the time that the Division restores it.

2

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

defendant knew that his/her license was suspended or revoked.3

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant

circumstances if he/she is aware th at his/her conduct is of that na ture or that such circumstances

exist or if he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence.

Knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be

determined only from inferences from conduct, words, or acts. A state of mind is rarely

susceptible of direct proof but mu st ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not

necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he/she had a certain

1 See N.J.S.A. 39:3-40. When the State alleges that the defendan t was refused a license, that (his/her) reciprocity

privileges were suspended or that (he/she) had been pr ohibited from obtaining a license, the charge should be

modified accordingly.

2 State v. Zalta, 217 N.J. Super. 209, 212-213 (App. Div. 1987). See also, State v. Sandoro, 272 N.J. Super. 206

(App. Div. 1994).

3 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2c(3). But see, State v. Wenof , 102 N.J. Super . 370, 375 (Cty. Ct. 1968), which holds that a

motorist need not have actual knowledge that (his/her) license has been revoked or suspended as long as the

Division of Motor Vehicles attempted to notify the motorist of the suspension by means reasonably calculated to

reach (him/her).

CAUSING DEATH WHILE OPERATING ON

THE REVOKED/SUSPENDED LIST

(N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22a)

state of mind when he/she engaged in a particular act. It is within your power to find that such

proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference, which may arise from the

nature of the 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 reasonabl e doubt is that the

defendant knowingly operated a motor vehicle.

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

defendant’s operation resulted in the death of another.

For the defendant’s operation to result in the death of (insert deceden t’s name), the State

must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, the State must prove that the death would not have occurred but for the defendant’s

operation. In other words, the St ate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this death would

not have occurred if the defendant had not operated a motor vehicle.

Second, the State must prove both:

(1) that the death was not too remote in its occurrence as to have a just bearing on

the defendant’s liability; and

(2) that the death was not too dependent upon the conduct of another person that

was unrelated to the defendant’s operation as to have a just bearing on his/her

liability.

In other words, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of (insert

decedent’s name) was not so unexpected or unusual that it would be unjust to find the defendant

guilty of this offense.

In considering any conduct of a person other than the defenda nt, be aware that it is not a

defense that (insert decedent’s name) contributed to (his/her) own death by reckless or negligent

conduct, or reckless or negligent operation.

If you find that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt,

then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however , the State has failed to prove any element

beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

4

4 If the trial court plans to consider any Title 39 char ge as a lesser included offense, the jury should be advised

accordingly. State v. Muniz, 118 N.J. 333-334 (1990).