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


PEERING (N.J.S.A. 2C:18‑3(c)) model jury charge

CRIMINAL TRESPASS - PEERING

(N.J.S.A. 2C:18‑3(c))model jury charge

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with:

(Read indictment)

The statute on which the indictment is based reads in pertinent part as follows:

A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he peers into a window or other opening of a dwelling or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation for the purpose of invading the privacy of another person and under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling or other structure would not expect to be observed.

In order for defendant to be convicted of this offense, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.That the defendant peered into a window (or other opening) of a dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation);

2.That the defendant did so knowing thathe/shehad no right to peer at that time;

3.That the defendant did so for the purpose of invading the privacy of another person;

4.That the defendant did so under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) would not expect to be observed.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant peered into a window (or other opening) of a dwelling[1](or other structure[2]adapted for overnight accommodation). The State need not prove that the defendant actually entered the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation).

A dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) means a place which human beings regularly use for sleeping. A dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) is no longer a dwelling when its occupants leave it without any intention to return.

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant so peered knowing thathe/shehad no right to do so at that time. Knowing under this statute meansthat defendant was aware thathe/shewas not licensed or privileged to peer in the window (or other opening) or that defendant was aware of the high probability thathe/shewas not so licensed or privileged.

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant peered for the purpose of invading the privacy of another person. Acting with purpose under the statute means it was the defendants conscious object to invade the privacy of another person. Whether this was the defendants purpose is a question of fact for you to decide. A person acts purposely with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or a result thereof if ithis/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. Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences drawn from the defendants conduct, words or acts. 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. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.

The State is not obligated to prove that the person(s) being observed knew that they were being observed or that the defendant actually observed anyone. Rather, the State must prove that the defendant peered for the purpose of invading the privacy of another person.

The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant peered under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) would not expect to be observed.

(NO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE) ADD

If you find that the State has proven to you all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If the State has failed to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.

(AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) ADD

The defendantas part ofhis/herdenial of guilt asserts that[CHOOSE APPLICABLE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(S) FROM ALTERNATIVES BELOW]:

(A) The dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) was open to members of the public andhe/shecomplied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) at the time thathe/shepeered into the window (or other opening).[3]It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) was not open to members of the public or that defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) at the time thathe/shepeered into the window (or other opening). Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved all of the elements of the criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are still not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has disproved the defendants claim that the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) was open to members of the public and defendant complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) at the time thathe/shepeered into the window (or other opening), then you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the criminal trespass and has also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) was not open to members of the public or that defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the dwelling (or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation) at the time thathe/shepeered into the window (or other opening), then you must find the defendant guilty of criminal trespass.

OR

(B)He/Shereasonably believed that the owner of the premises, (or other person authorized to give permission thereto), would have permittedhim/herto peer into the window (or other opening).[4]It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe thathe/shewould have been permitted by the owner (or other person empowered to permit access thereto) to peer into the window (or other opening). Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proved all of the elements of the criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are still not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has disproved the defendants claim thathe/shedid have a reasonable belief thathe/shewould have been permitted or privileged to peer into the window (or other opening), then you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the criminal trespass and has also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could nothave reasonably believed thathe/shewould be permitted or privileged to peer into the window (or other opening), then you must find the defendant guilty of criminal trespass.



[1]State v. Crutcher, 313N.J. Super. 203, 208 (App. Div. 1998). See also Id. at 211, noting that the structure lost its character as a dwelling when it sat vacant for a substantial period.

[2]See the definition of structure inN.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. In this chapter, unless a different meaning plainly is required, structure means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.

[3]N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3d(2).

[4]N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3d(3).

   
FOR POTENTIAL CLIENTS TO CONTACT US DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS, PLEASE FILL OUT THE FORM.
Name:
Cell Phone:
E-Mail Address


If You Do Not Include a Complete E-Mail Address, Network will not Forward Your Contact Form to the Law Office.

Details of the Case
Agree
By typing " agree" into the box you are confirming that you wish to send your information to the Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen

Change Image
Write the characters in the image above


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

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.