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


INTERFERENCE WITH TRANSPORTATION 2C:33-14) model jury charge

INTERFERENCE WITH TRANSPORTATION

(N.J.S.A.2C:33-14)model jury charge

Count _________ of the indictment provides as follows:

[READ COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT]

This count charges the defendant with Interference with Transportation in violation of a statute which provides as follows:

A person is guilty of interference with transportation if the person purposely or knowingly:

[CHOOSE APPROPRIATE]

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(1)][1]

casts, shoots or throws anything at, against or into any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive,railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane,or other facility of transportation.

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(2)]

casts, shoots, throws or otherwise places any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any street railway track, trolley track or railroad track.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(3)]

endangers or obstructs the safe operation of motor vehicles by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise placing any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(4)]

unlawfully climbs into or upon any light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad car, either in motion or standing on the track of any railroad company in this State.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(5)]

unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents the operation of any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, train . . . jitney, trolley, subway, airplane or any other facility of transportation.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(6)]

endangers or obstructs the safe operation of motor vehicles by using a traffic control preemption device to interfere with or impair the operation of a traffic control signal as defined under the law.[2]

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(7)]

shines, points, or focuses a laser lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a person operating any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane or other facility of transportation.

In order for the defendant to be found guilty of interfering with transportation, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant

[CHOOSE APPROPRIATE]

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(1)]

(1)cast, shot or threw anythingat, against or into any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry,airplane or other facility of transportation.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(2)]

(1)cast, shot, threw or otherwise placed any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any street railway track, trolley track or railroad track.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(3)]

(1)endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles

(2)by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise placing any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(4)]

(1)unlawfully climbed into or upon any light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad car, either in motion or standing on the track of any railroad company in this State.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(5)]

(1)unlawfully disrupted, delayed or prevented the operation of any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, train, bus, jitney, trolley, subway, airplane or any other facility of transportation.

[The term unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents the operation of does not include non-violent conduct growing out of a labor dispute].[3]

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(6)]

(1)endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles

(2)by using a traffic control preemption device to interfere with or impair the operation of a traffic control signal as defined under the law.[4]

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(7)]

(1) shined, pointed or focused a laser lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a person operating any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.

AND

(2) or (3) that the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly].

[CHOOSE APPROPRIATE]

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(1)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant did cast, shoot or throw anything at, against or into any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(2)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant did cast, shoot, throw or otherwise place any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any street railway track, trolley track or railroad track.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(3)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles.

The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is thathe/sheendangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles by casting, shooting, throwing or otherwise placing any stick, stone, object or other substance upon any highway or roadway.

OR

[N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(4)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant unlawfully climbed into or upon any light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive or railroad car, either in motion or standing on the track of any railroad company in this State.

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(5)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant unlawfully disrupted, delayed or prevented the operation of any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, train . . . jitney, trolley, subway, airplane, or any other facility of transportation.

[The term unlawfully disrupts, delays or prevents the operation of does not include non-violent conduct growing out of a labor dispute.[5]If this issue is raised, the burden is upon the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.]

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(6)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles.

The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant endangered or obstructed the safe operation of motor vehicles by using a traffic control preemption device to interfere with or impair the operation of a traffic control signal.

Traffic control preemption device means an infrared transmitter or other device which transmits an infrared beam, radio wave or other signal designed to change, alter, or disrupt in any manner the normal operation of a traffic control signal.[6]

Traffic control signal means a device, whether manually, electrically, mechanically, or otherwise controlled, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and to proceed.[7]

OR

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14a(7)]

The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant shined, pointed or focused a laser lighting device beam, directly or indirectly, upon a person operating any vehicle, including, but not limited to, a bus, light rail vehicle, railroad locomotive, railroad car, jitney, trolley car, subway car, ferry, airplane, or other facility of transportation.

Laser lighting device means a device which emits a laser beam that is designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark or identify a specific position, place, item or object.[8]

[READ IN ALL CASES]

The [second] [third] element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly].

[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 or believes or hopes that they exist.With purpose, designed, with design, or equivalent terms have the same meaning.]

[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].

[Purpose] [knowledge] is/are condition(s) of the mind that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendants conduct, words or acts and all the surrounding circumstances.It is not necessary for the State to prove the existence of such a mental state by direct evidence such as a statement by the defendant thathe/shehad a particular [purpose] [knowledge].It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of [purpose] [knowledge] has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.

[All jurors do not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted purposely or knowingly, so long as all agree thathe/shehad one or the other state of mind.]

If the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of interference with transportation.If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of interference with transportation.

GRADING

[CHOOSE APPROPRIATE]

[SECOND DEGREE][9]

If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused serious bodily injury to another person.I have already defined [purposely][knowingly] for you.

[CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE]

To this point in the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant acted recklessly.There is good reason for that.The issue of recklessness is only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with Transportation.A defendant is guilty of this offense only ifhe/sheacted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind.You may consider whether the defendant acted recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.

A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereofwhenhe/sheconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known tohim/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[10]

Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences drawn from ones conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant saidhe/sheknew or believed thathe/shewas acting recklessly.His/Herstate of mind is to be determined by you after you examinehis/herconduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances.It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.[11]Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[12]

[All jurors do not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly], so long as all agree thathe/shehad one or the other state of mind.]

If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused serious bodily injury to another person,then you must findhim/herguilty of this form of interference with transportation.If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must findhim/hernot guilty of this form of interference with transportation.

OR

[THIRD DEGREE][13]

If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that:

[CHOOSE FROM THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS]

Option 1.the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused significant bodily injury to another person

OR

Option 2.the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] created a risk of significant bodily injury to another person

OR

Option 3.the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss of$2000 or more.

I have already defined [purposely] [knowingly] for you.

[CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE]

To this point in the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant acted recklessly.There is good reason for that.The issue of recklessness is only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with Transportation.A defendant is guilty of this offense only ifhe/sheacted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind.You may consider whether the defendant acted recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.

A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereofwhenhe/sheconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conductand the circumstances known tohim/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[14]

Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences drawn from ones conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed thathe/shewas acting recklessly.His/Herstate of mind is to be determined by you after you examinehis/herconduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances.It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.

[Significant bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a temporary loss of the function of any bodily member or organ or temporary loss of any one of the five senses.[15]

Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[16]]

[All jurors do not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted purposely, knowingly, or recklessly, so long as all agree thathe/shehad one or the other state of mind.][17]

[The value of a pecuniary loss is the fair market value of the property of which the owner was deprived at the time ofhis/herpossession.][18]

If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

[CHOOSE FROM ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS]

Option 1.[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused significant bodily injury to another person

OR

Option 2.[purposely] [knowingly] created a risk of significant bodily injury to another person

OR

Option 3.[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss of $2000 or more

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

then you must findhim/herguilty of this form of interference with transportation.If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must findhim/hernot guilty of this form of interference with transportation.

OR

[FOURTH DEGREE][19]

If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that:

[CHOOSE FROM THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS]

Option 1.[the defendant [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused bodily injury to another person]

OR

Option 2.[the defendant [purposely][knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss in excess of $500 but less than $2000].

I have already defined [purposely] [knowingly] for you.

[CHARGE IF APPROPRIATE]

To this point in the trial, you have not been asked to consider whether or not the defendant acted recklessly.There is good reason for that.The issue of recklessness is only relevant when considering the severity of the offense of Interference with Transportation.A defendant is guilty of this offense only ifhe/sheacted with a [purposeful][knowing] state of mind.You may consider whether the defendant acted recklessly only in determining the severity of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.

A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereofwhenhe/sheconsciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conductand the circumstances known tohim/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[20]

Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by inferences drawn from ones conduct, words or acts, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant saidhe/sheknew or believed thathe/shewas acting recklessly.His/Herstate of mind is to be determined by you after you examinehis/herconduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances.It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.

[Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[21]]

[The value of a pecuniary loss is the fair market value of the property of which the owner was deprivedat the time of his/her possession.][22]

[All jurors do not have to agree unanimously as to whether the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly], so long as all agree thathe/shehad one or the other state of mind.]

If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

[CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS]

Option 1.[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused bodily injury to another person

OR

Option 2.[purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] caused pecuniary loss in excess of $500 but less than $2000

[CHARGE IN ALL CASES]

then you must findhim/herguilty of this form of interference with transportation.If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must findhim/hernot guilty of this form of interference with transportation.



[1]Here, and throughout the charge, the jury should not be apprised of statutory citations.

[2]SeeR.S. 39:1-1.

[3]SeeN.J.S.A.2A:15-58;N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(5).

[4]SeeR.S.39:1-1.

[5]SeeN.J.S.A.2A:15-58;N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(5).

[6]N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(7).

[7]R.S.39:1-1.

[8]N.J.S.A.2C:33-14a(7).

[9]The jury should not be advised of the degree of the alleged crime.

[10]SeeN.J.S.A.2C:2-2b(3).

[11]Cf.N.J.S.A.2C:11-1b.

[12]Cf.N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a.

[13]The jury should not be advised of the degree of the alleged crime.

[14]SeeN.J.S.A.2C:2-2b(3).

[15]Cf.N.J.S.A.2C:11-1a.

[16]Cf.N.J.S.A.2C:11-1a.

[17]Recall that Option 2 only requires purposeful or knowing intent.

[18]SeeN.J.S.A.2C:1-14m.

[19]The jury should not be advised of the degree of the alleged crime.

[20]SeeN.J.S.A.2C:2-2b(3).

[21]Cf.N.J.S.A.2C:11-1a.

[22]SeeN.J.S.A.2C:1-14m.


Kenneth Vercammen was the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletter with current laws and cases

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.NJLaws.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.