HINDERING APPREHENSION OR PROSECUTION OF ANOTHER
(N.J.S.A.2C:29-3a)model jury charge
The defendant is charged with the offense of hindering apprehension or prosecution, in thathe/sheis alleged to have(summarize appropriate portions of indictment).
This charge is based upon a statute which provides that:
A person commits an offense if, with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for [an offense]OR[a violation of Title 39 of the New Jersey Statutes]OR[a violation of Chapter 33A of Title 17 of the Revised Statutes] he [refer to appropriate portion ofN.J.S.A.2C:29-3a(1) thru (7)].
For you to find the defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.Those elements are:
(1)that the defendant knew that (Name) could/might be charged with (offense);
(2)that the defendant(read appropriate subsection ofN.J.S.A.2C:29-3a(1) to (7));and
(3)that the defendant acted with purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of (Name).
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant must have known that (Name) could/might be charged with (offense).This does not mean that the State must prove thathe/shehad actual personal knowledge that (Name) had committed (the offense), but rather thathe/sheknew such facts either byhis/herown observations or by information given tohim/heras would reasonably alert someone that (Name)could/might be charged with (offense).
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or the attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware thathis/herconduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, orhe/sheis aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowingly with respect to a result ofhis/herconduct ifhe/sheis aware that it is practically certain thathis/herconduct will cause such a result.Knowing, with knowledge, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Knowledge is a condition of the mind.It cannot be seen.It can only be determined by inference from defendants 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 accused said thathe/shehad a certain state of mind whenhe/shedid a particular thing.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 ofhis/heracts and conduct and from allhe/shesaid and did at the particular time and place and from all surrounding circumstances established by the evidence.
The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that on (date), the defendant:
(1)harbored or concealed (Name).
Here, the State must prove that the defendant hid, or protected, or sheltered or secreted (Name) from the authorities.
(2)provided (or aided in providing) a weapon (or money, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension or affecting escape) to (Name).
(3)(suppressed, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime)OR(tampered with a witness [or informant, document or other source of information]), which (evidence, witness, etc.) might aid in the discovery or apprehension of (Name) or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
(4)warned (Name) of impending or imminent discovery or apprehension.
(5)prevented or obstructed, by means of force, intimidation or deception, (Name) from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of (other) or in the lodging of a charge against (him/her).
(6)aided (other) to protect or expeditiously profit from an advantage derived from such crime.This means that after the (offense) was committed, the defendant assisted (Name) in carrying out his unlawful objective for a share in the proceeds or some other reason.
(7)gavefalse information to
(A)a law enforcement officer.A law enforcement officer is a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest and conviction of offenders against the laws of the State.
(B)a civil State Investigator assigned to the Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor.
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose of hindering (Name)s detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment for (offense).
A person acts purposely with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereof if it ishis/herconscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances ifhe/sheis aware of the existence of such circumstances orhe/shebelieves or hopes that they exist.Someone acts purposely ifhe/sheacts with design, with a purpose, with a particular objective in mind, ifhe/shereally means to do whathe/shedoes.With purpose, designed, with design, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
A purpose to aid another to avoid arrest is not proved merely by showing that the defendant helped someone who was a fugitive, for such help may be provided with motivations having nothing to do with impeding law enforcement.Here, the objective of the defendant must have been to obstruct, to prevent, to hinder the authorities from arresting, prosecuting, investigating, convicting or punishing (Name) for an offense.
Purpose and knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined 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, members of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said thathe/shehad a certain state of mind whenhe/sheengaged 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 ofhis/heracts andhis/herconduct, and from allhe/shesaid and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.
If after considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has proven each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must findhim/herguilty.On the other hand, if you find that the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (WHERE APPROPRIATE)
As part ofhis/herdenial of guilt, the defendant claims thathe/sheis the [parent] [child] [spouse] [domestic partner] [civil union partner] of the personhe/sheallegedly aided.
If after considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has proved each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and you further conclude that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not the[choose appropriate relationship], then you must find defendant guilty of hindering apprehension ofhis/her[choose appropriate relationship].
If after considering all of the evidence you conclude that the State has proved each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but you conclude that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not the[choose appropriate relationship],then you must find defendant guilty of hindering apprehension ofhis/her[choose appropriate relationship].
UnlikeN.J.S.A.2C:28-5 (tampering), this statute does not require that defendant know or believe either that a charge has been made or is likely to be made; instead, it is addressed at the wrongfulavoidanceof an official action by attempting to prevent a witness from reporting a crime to the police.State v. D.A., 191N.J.158, 170 (2007) (emphasis added).
State v. Lynch, 79N.J.327, 339 (1979).Note that the degree of this crime depends upon whether the offense that the person aided had been or was likely to be charged with would have constituted a crime of the second degree or greater, a crime of the third degree, or a crime of the fourth degree or less.Any issue regarding what degree of crime defendant knew that the person aided had been or would likely be charged with must be submitted to the jury, along with definitions of the elements of the crimes or offenses that the issue of knowledge entails.
See notation in IICommentary: Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Review Commission284-85 (1971): Providing a fugitive with funds is an act of equivocal significance.He may use it to escape or hide, to pay debts or go into business, or to support himself or his dependents, or to hire a lawyer.Paragraph b [now 3a(2)] is intended to require proof that money was furnished not merely pursuant to a general desire to promote the offenders plan to remain at large, but specifically to facilitate escape efforts.
Note: this does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law, such as a fellow motorist warning speeders to slow down for a speed trap, or a lawyer advising a client to discontinue illegal activities.Commentary,supra, at 285.
For example, one might act as custodian of the proceeds of a bank robbery until the robbers should agree on a distribution, or help a thief to collect a reward for the return of stolen goods, or to exchange marked ransom money.Commentary,supra, at 285.
Prior to the enactment ofP.L.1999,c.297 (December 23, 1999), this subsection read volunteered false information . . . , which was read to mean taking the initiative in furnishing false information, rather than simply providing such information in response to questioning.State v. Valentine, 105N.J.14 (1987).