BAIL JUMPING 2C:29‑7 model jury charge NJ

BAIL JUMPING 2C:29‑7 model jury charge

DEFAULT IN REQUIRED APPEARANCE (BAIL JUMPING)[1] (N.J.S.A. 2C:29‑7)model jury charge The indictment charges the defendant with a violation of a statute that provides in pertinent part: A person set at liberty by court order, with or without bail, or who has been issued a summons, upon condition that he will subsequently appear at a specified time and place in connection with any offense or any violation of law punishable by a period of incarceration, commits an offense if, without lawful excuse, he fails to appear at that time and place. Therefore, in order to convict the defendant of the crime charged in this indictment, the State has the burden of proving each of the following elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)That the defendant was charged with an offense or violation of lawpunishable by a period of incarceration. For the purpose of determining whether the State has proven this element, you are instructed that the offense known asis punishable by a period of incarceration.[2] (2)That the defendant was set at liberty by court order, with or without bail, or issued a summons, upon condition thathe/shewould subsequently appear at a specified time and place.[3] (3)That the defendant failed to appear at that time and place. (4)That the defendants failure to appear was without lawful excuse. (5)That the defendant knew ofhis/hercharges, knew of the conditions ofhis/herrelease, knew ofhis/herobligation to appear at the particular time and place, knowingly failed to appear, and knew thathis/herfailure to appear was without lawful excuse.[4] 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 or ifhe/sheis aware of a high probability of their existence.A person acts knowinglywith respect to the result ofhis/herconduct ifhe/sheis aware that it is practically certain thathis/herconduct will cause such a result.Knowledge is a state of mind that cannot be seen and can only be determined by inference from conduct, words or acts.Therefore, it is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that a defendant said thathe/sheknowingly did something.His/Herknowledge maybe gathered fromhis/heracts and conduct, from all thathe/shesaid and did at the particular time and place, and from all the surrounding circumstances reflected in the testimony [and adduced at trial]. I have already told you that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants non‑appearance was without lawful excuse.A lawful excuse is one that is warranted, authorized or sanctioned by the law, and that is not contrary to or forbidden by law.An example of a lawful excuse would be confinement to a hospital or institution, preventing a defendant from appearing when required at a specific time and place.[CHARGE WHERE APPROPRIATE:In this case the defense asserts that the defendant did not appear at the scheduled time and place becausehe/shehad a lawful excuse.(Recite the defendants asserted excuse as presented by the evidence.)]Whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants failure to appear was without lawful excuse is for you to decide, as all other issues, based on the evidence that has been presented for your consideration. If you find that the State has proven all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty.If you find that the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty.