FALSE PUBLIC ALARMS(N.J.S.A. 2C:33‑3)model jury charge in NJ
The indictment charges the defendant with a violation of a provision of our criminal law which reads in pertinent part:
A
person is guilty of a crime if he initiates or circulates a report or
warning of an impending fire, explosion, bombing, crime, catastrophe or
emergency, knowing that the report or warning is false or baseless and
that it is likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly
or facility of public transport, or to cause public inconveniences or
alarm.
In
order for the defendant to be guilty of this offense, the State must
prove all the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1)The
State must first prove that the defendant knowingly initiated or
circulated a report or warning of an impending fire, or explosion, or
bombing, or crime, or catastrophe, or emergency (charge the applicable
warning).
(2)The State must next prove that the defendant knew that the report or warning that he/sheinitiated or circulated was false or baseless.
To be done knowingly means a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature ofhis/herconduct or the attendant circumstances if he/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 if he/sheis aware that it is practically certain thathis/herconduct will cause such a result.
(3)The State must also prove that the defendant knew the false or baseless report or warning initiated or circulated byhim/herwas
likely to cause the evacuation of a building, or a place of assembly,
or a facility of public transport, or to cause public inconvenience or
alarm (charge the appropriate alternative).
It
is not necessary that, in fact, a building, or a place of public
assembly, or a facility of public transport was evacuated or that a
public inconvenience or alarm actually occurred.It is only necessary
that the State prove that the report or warning was false or baseless,
which merely means untrue, and that the defendant knew that it was
false, baseless or untrue and knew that the report or warning was likely
to cause the result that has just been described.
If
you determine that the State has proved all of these elements beyond a
reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant guilty.But if you
have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these elements, you should
find him/hernot guilty.
NOTE:Re: N.J.S.A. 2C:33‑3,Causing Evacuation of Building, etc.
The
manner in which the report or warning is initiated or circulated under
the statute must be scrutinized carefully by the Court so as not to run
afoul of the United States Constitution.InState v. Profaci, 56N.J. 346, 266A.2d
597 (1970), it was held that the mere uttering of offensive or profane
or indecent language is not an offense.It is necessary that the language
be spoken loudly in a public place and must be of such a nature as to
be likely to incite the hearer to immediate breach of the peace or to be
likely, in light of the gender and age of the listener and the setting
of the utterance, to affect the sensibilities of the hearer.Accordingly,
it is thought that the report or warning, whether it be written or
oral, must be of the nature to be communicated to another in the
described illicit fashion.When words, whether written or verbal, are
labeled criminal, the court must become involved in a balancing before
submitting the case to a jury.
In
determining whether the report or warning is false, it is submitted
that the jury must find that the report or warning is objectively
untrue, incorrect or erroneous, and that the defendant knew it to be
so.In a malicious prosecution action inDombrowski v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 126N.J.L. 545 19A.2d
678 (E & A, 1941), the Court said The word false in juristic uses
frequently implies something is more than a mere untruth . . . The
adverb falsely is defined inWebsters New International Dictionaryas
in a false manner; erroneously; not truly; perfidiously; or
treacherously. It is thought that it is enough that the report or
warning was objectively untrue when the defendant knew it to be so, and
said report or warning had the capacity to be communicated to a third
person and cause the consequences referred to in the statute.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment