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


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

CRIMINAL TRESPASS(N.J.S.A. 2C:18‑3(a))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 enters or surreptitiously remains in any research facility,[1]structure[2]or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

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 (entered) (surreptitiously remained)[3]in any (research facility) (structure) (or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof), and

(2)That the defendant did so knowing that (he/she) had no right to enter or to be there at that time.

Knowing under this statute means that defendant was aware thathe/shewas not licensed or privileged to (enter) (surreptitiously remain) inor that defendant was aware of the high probability thathe/shewas not so licensed or privileged.

(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 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

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

(A) the (structure) (research facility) was abandoned.[4]A (structure) (research facility) is abandoned when its legal owner has vacated it with no intention of returning or reclaiming it.[5]It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the (structure) (research facility) was not abandoned. Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proven 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 (structure) (research facility) was abandoned, you must find defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proven all of the elements of the criminal trespass and has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the (structure) (research facility) was not abandoned, then you must find defendant guilty of criminal trespass.

OR

(B) the (structure) (research facility) was open to members of the public andhe/shecomplied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the (structure) (research facility) at the time thathe/sheentered (or remained in) it. It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the (structure) (research facility) was not open to members of the public and/or that defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the (structure) (research facility) at the time thathe/sheentered (or remained in) it. Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proven 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 defendants claim that the (structure) (research facility) was open to members of the public and defendant complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the (structure) (research facility) at the time thathe/sheentered (or remained in) it, then you must find defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proven all of the elements of the criminal trespass and has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the (structure) (research facility) was not open to members of the public and/or that defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the (structure) (research facility) at the time thathe/sheentered (or remained in) it, then you must find defendant guilty of criminal trespass.

OR

(C)He/Shereasonably believed that the owner of the premises, (or other person authorized to give permissionthereto), would have permittedhim/herto enter or remain.[6]It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not reasonably believe thathe/shewould have been permitted by the owner (or other person empowered to permit access thereto) to enter (or remain). Therefore, if you conclude that the State has proven 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 defendants claim thathe/shedid have a reasonable belief thathe/shewould have been permitted or privileged to (enter) (remain), then you must find defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proven all of the elements of the criminal trespass and has also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant could not have reasonably believed thathe/shewould be permitted or privileged to enter (remain), then you must find defendant guilty of criminal trespass.

DEGREE [CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE(S), IF APPLICABLE][7]

If and only if you find defendant guilty of criminal trespass, you must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed:

(1)in a dwelling. A dwelling is any structure where individuals reside and sleep, or other structure that is dedicated to or intended for residential use.[8]Here, the State alleges; the defense contends. Furthermore, a structure is a dwelling, whether occupied, unoccupied, or vacant, so long as the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is suitable for residential use.[9]

(2)in a research facility. [See footnote 1suprafor definition of research facility].

(3) on school property. School property is property used for school purposes that is owned or leased to any elementary or secondary school board or a school bus.[10][CHARGE WHERE APPLICABLE: Property that is permissively used for school purposes but is neither owned nor leased by the school board of any school is not school property within the meaning of this statute.][11]

If the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed in/on(insert appropriate alternative[s]),you must find defendant guilty of criminal trespass. If the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed in/on(insert appropriate alternative[s]), you must find defendant guilty of criminal trespass, a disorderly persons offense.



[1]Research facility means any building, laboratory, institution, organization, or school engaged in research, testing, educational or experimental activities, or any commercial or academic enterprise that uses warm-blooded or cold-blooded animals for food or fiber production, agriculture, research, testing, experimentation, or education. A research facility includes but is not limited to, any enclosure, separately secured yard, pad, pond, vehicle, building, structure or premises, or separately secured portion thereof.N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14p.

[2]Definition of structure:N.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 to overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.

[3]If surreptitiously remained is in your case, charge that the defendant remained secretly, stealthily, or fraudulently for some duration in the (research facility) (structure), or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof knowing that (he/she) was not licensed or privileged to do so. [SeeCannel,Criminal Code Annotated, Comment 4,N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2;Kaplowitz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 201N.J. Super. 593, 600 (Law Div. 1985);Blacks Law Dictionaryat p. 1445 (6th ed. 1990) [definition of surreptitious].

[4]N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3d(1).

[5]Blacks Law Dictionaryat p.2 (6th ed. 1990);State v. Bailey, 97N.J. Super. 396, 400-401 (App. Div. 1967).

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

[7]2C:18-3a makes the offense a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a dwelling, a research facility, in a school, or on school property. Otherwise it is a disorderly persons offense.

[8]State v. Scott, 169N.J. 94, 104 (2001). Examples of a dwelling include, but are not limited to, a home, townhouse, apartment, condominium, motel or hotel.Ibid.

[9]As to an unoccupied rental structure, seeScott, 169N.J. at 102-04.CompareState v. Crutcher, 313N.J. Super. 203, 205 and 211 (App. Div. 1998), discussed atScott, 169N.J. at 102, in which the unoccupied house was essentially uninhabitable not only because it was unoccupied for nearly a year, but also because it did not have working utilities and was not in any way being maintained in anticipation of sale or rental.

[10]N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.

[11]State v. Belnavis, 311N.J. Super. 195, 198-199 (App. Div. 1998).

   
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.