NJ Laws Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates Ken Vercammens Resume Ken Vercammen articles

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates
A Law Office with Experienced Attorneys for Your New Jersey Legal Needs

2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison NJ 08817
732-572-0500
1-800-655-2977

Personal Injury and Criminal
on Weekends 732-261-4005

Princeton Area
68 South Main St.
Cranbury, NJ 08512
By Appointment Only
Toll Free 800-655-2977


HARASSMENT (Lesser- Offense) 2C:33‑4) model jury charge

HARASSMENT(Lesser-Included Offense)

(N.J.S.A. 2C:33‑4)model jury charge

The law requires that the Court instruct the jury with respect to possible (lesser) included offenses, even if they are not contained in the indictment. Just because the Court is instructing you concerning these offenses does not mean that the Court has any opinion one way or another about whether the defendant committed these, or any, offenses. You should consider these offenses along with those for which the defendant is indicted. However, you are not to render a verdict on these offenses or answer the questions on the verdict sheet unless you find that the State has failed to meet its burden with regard to the offense(s) in the indictment.

The relevant portions of the statute dealing with harassment read as follows:

[Read only relevant parts of statute]

A person commits an . . . offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:

a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.[1]

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

[Include only relevant alternative elements and related explanations]

a. (1) That the defendant made one or more communications anonymously, or at

extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or in any

other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; and

(2) That the defendants purpose was to harass (name of victim), in other

words, to annoy or alarm (name of victim).

You must determine whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made one or more communications in one or more of the ways described, and whether it was the defendants purpose to annoy or alarm (the victim).

If you find that one or more communications were made in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm, but that they were not made anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours or in offensively coarse language, then the manner of communication used by the defendant must be one that intruded into the victims legitimate expectations of privacy from such communications.[2]

OR

b. (1) That the defendant threatened to (or did)[3] strike, kick, shove, or otherwise offensively touch (name of victim); and

(2) That the defendants purpose was to harass (name of victim), in other

words, to annoy or alarm (name of victim).

OR

c. (1) That the defendant engaged in a course of alarming conduct or of

repeatedly committed acts; and

(2) That the defendants purpose was to harass (name of victim), that is, to

alarm or seriously annoy (name of victim).

With respect to a course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committed acts, the conduct or acts must be such that they are intended to cause alarm or serious annoyance. It is not sufficient if the course of conduct or repeated acts are merely irritating, nettlesome, or vexing.[4]

A purpose to harass must be coupled with the performance of at least one of the acts listed in the statute. In determining a defendants purpose, you must apply the definition of the word purpose and the related instructions that were previously given when you were instructed regarding the elements of the offense of (terroristic threats) (stalking) as charged in the indictment. [The State alleges that the defendants purpose was . [Charge where appropriate: The defendant contends that he/she did not have a purpose to harass. Instead, he/she contends .]

If the State has failed to prove any element of harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.

On the other hand, if the State has proven each of the elements of harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of that offense.



[1] See State v. B.H., 290 N.J.Super. 588, 597 (App. Div. 1996), revd in part and affd in part, 149 N.J. 564 (1997) (The subsections of the statute address categories of conduct which can be broadly described as communications, physical contact, and course of conduct.)

[2] The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the catch-all provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm to preserve the statutes constitutionality. The Court held that a communication under that provision must intrude upon a legitimate expectation of privacy. State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 583 (1997). Earlier in the same case, the Appellate Division had held that the degree of annoyance under subsection (a) must be serious, not merely nettlesome or vexing. State v. B.H., 290 N.J. Super. at 598. The Supreme Court rejected this holding, noting that subsection (a) of the statute does not include the word serious, while subsection (c) does. See Hoffman, 149 N.J. at 575-81.

[3] This model charge focuses primarily on verbal conduct because harassment is most often requested as a lesser-included offense for charges that do not involve physical contact, such as terroristic threats or stalking.

[4] The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the catch-all provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm to preserve the statutes constitutionality. The Court held that a communication under that provision must intrude upon a legitimate expectation of privacy. State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 583 (1997). Earlier in the same case, the Appellate Division had held that the degree of annoyance under subsection (a) must be serious, not merely nettlesome or vexing. State v. B.H., 290 N.J. Super. at 598. The Supreme Court rejected this holding, noting that subsection (a) of the statute does not include the word serious, while subsection (c) does. See Hoffman, 149 N.J. at 575-81.


Kenneth Vercammen was the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year

Telephone Consultation Program
New Article of the Week

Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammens Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutors Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Dont give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or drivers license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.KennethVercammen.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.

Ken Vercammen articles

Ken Vercammens Resume Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates



Disclaimer This web site is purely a public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed as an endorsement.

Copyright 2017. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.