INSANITY (N.J.S.A. 2C:4‑1) model jury charge in NJ
|
INSANITY
(N.J.S.A. 2C:4‑1)
Apart from his/her general denial of guilt, the defendant maintains that he/she is not guilty of the crime charged by reason of insanity.
If
you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
any essential element of the offense, or the defendants participation in
the offense, you must find the defendant not guilty and you need not
consider the evidence as to the defendants insanity.
If
you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each
essential element of the offense, and the defendants participation in
the offense, you must then consider the evidence as to the defendants
insanity.
All persons are assumed capable of committing crimes. Insane persons, however, are not capable of committing crimes. It
is, therefore, necessary for me to instruct you with respect to the law
of insanity so far as it relates to the responsibility of a person for
the commission of a crime.
First of all, the law entertains no prejudice against the defense of insanity. On
the contrary, if the defense of insanity is sufficiently established,
the law allows the defendant the benefit of it by an acquittal of all
criminal responsibility. To consider this defense, it is necessary that
you understand the laws concept of criminal responsibility. Our society and our law recognize that some people may be bad and some people may be sick. A
hostile act, that is, an illegal act, may in one case spring from
wickedness and in another from some infirmity or sickness of the mind
which the individual did not design. It
is societys moral judgment, recognized by our law, that a forbidden act
should not be punished criminally unless done with a knowledge of
wrongdoing.
The
law, however, from considerations of public policy, the welfare of
society and the safety of human life, proceeds with care, requiring that
the proof of such a defense of insanity be established consistent with a
standard recognized by the law. Under
our law all persons are assumed to be sane and, therefore, responsible
for their conduct until the contrary is established. Insanity
is an affirmative defense and the burden of proving it by a
preponderance of the evidence is on the defendant who asserts the
defense. If there is no
preponderance of evidence of insanity, the defense of insanity fails and
the defendant stands in the position of a sane individual responsible
on all the evidence in the case for his/her acts, whatever you may find them to have been.
The
law adopts a standard of its own as a test of criminal responsibility, a
standard not always in harmony with the views of psychiatrists. If
at the time of committing the act the defendant was laboring under such
a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he/she was doing or if defendant did know it, that he/she did not know what he/she was doing was wrong, the defendant was then legally insane and, therefore, not criminally responsible for his/her conduct.
As you can see, the law regards insanity as a disease of the mind. It may be temporary or permanent in its nature, but the condition must be a mental disease.
An accused may have the most absurd and irrational notions on some subject; he/she
may be unsound in mind, and be a fit subject for confinement and
treatment in a mental hospital; but, if at the time of the offense(s)
defendant had the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong and to
understand the nature and quality of the act done by him/her, he/she is subject to the criminal law. These
principles must necessarily be the governing principles in the
administration of the criminal law, or the most terrible crimes would
not be punishable, for such crimes are almost always committed under the
influence of an impulse which overcomes the restraint which usually
prevents the commission of a crime.
Therefore,
to establish insanity as a defense to the criminal charge in this case
the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the
mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or if defendant did know it, that he/she did not know that what he/she was doing was wrong.
The term preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of credible evidence in the case. It
does not necessarily mean the evidence of the greater number of
witnesses but means that evidence which carries the greater convincing
power to your minds.
Keep
in mind, however, that although the burden rests upon the defendant to
establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, the burden of proving the defendant guilty of the offense
charged here beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the State, and that
burden never shifts.
The question is not whether the defendant, when he/she
engaged in the deed, in fact actually thought or considered whether the
act was right or wrong, but whether defendant had sufficient mind and
understanding to have enabled him/her to comprehend that it was wrong if defendant had used his/her faculties for that purpose.
To
determine whether the defendant has established by the preponderance of
the evidence that, at the time of the commission of the alleged
offense, defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason from
disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he/she was doing, or if defendant did know it, that he/she did not know what he/she was doing was wrong you should consider all of the relevant and material evidence having a bearing on his/her mental condition, including his/her conduct at the time of the alleged act, his/her
conduct since, any mental history, any lay and medical testimony which
you have heard from witnesses who have testified for the defense and for
the State, and such other evidence by the testimony of witnesses or
exhibits in this case that may have a bearing upon, and assist you in
your determination of the issue of his/her mental condition.
There is a conflict of medical testimony, and you will have to determine where the truth lies. As
is true with all issues of fact, the issue is for you to resolve after a
careful consideration, comparison and evaluation of all the evidence
which is material to, or relevant on, the issue of the defendants
sanity. The assumed sanity of the defendant is not overcome until you determine that the defendant has sustained his/her
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time
of the offense alleged, defendant was insane under the legal definition
of insanity and, therefore, is absolved of criminal responsibility for
conduct for which he/she would otherwise be criminally responsible under the law. The jury is the sole judge of the weight to be given to lay and psychiatric testimony. Generally speaking, no distinction is made between expert testimony and evidence of another character. The
same tests that are applied in evaluating lay testimony must be used in
judging the weight and sufficiency of expert testimony. You
are the sole judges of the credibility of the medical witnesses, as
well as all other witnesses, and the weight to be accorded to the
testimony of each. You saw and you heard them. You had the opportunity
to observe their attitude and demeanor on the witness stand. You had the
opportunity to hear their means of obtaining knowledge of the facts,
and to notice their power of discernment, their candor or evasion, if
any, and their general and special professional and expert
qualifications and background. These
factors, any possible bias in favor of the side for whom each
testified, and any other matters which serve to illuminate the
statements of each may all be considered by you in determining the
credibility of the expert testimony and the weight to be accorded to it
or any part of it.
The
medical experts have testified that statements were made to them by the
defendant which statements were part of the history they secured from
the defendant. As I have
previously instructed you, these statements should not be considered as
substantive evidence against the defendant relating to his/her
guilt or innocence of the alleged offense, but only as evidence tending
to support the ultimate expert conclusion of the psychiatrist receiving
the history on the test of insanity. The witness, in effect, is not saying that such history is true. The witness is merely testifying that the statements comprising the history were made to him/her. You
may, in fact, determine from the evidence in the case that the facts
set forth in such history are true, not true, or true in part only, and,
in the light of such findings, you should decide what effect such
determination has upon the weight to be given to the opinion of the
expert.
However,
if a medical expert has testified that his/her opinion hinges upon the
truth of the matter asserted by the defendant at the time the defendant
gave the history to the doctor, the probative value of the psychiatrists
opinion will depend upon whether from all of the evidence in the case,
you find that those facts are true. The same is true for any other facts relied upon by the expert. If the doctor has testified that he/she
accepts as true certain facts on which the doctor bases his/her
opinion, your acceptance or rejection of the doctors opinion will depend
to some extent on your findings as to the truth of these facts.
VERDICTS
You may return one of three verdicts
(1) Not guilty.
(2) Guilty.
(3) Not guilty by reason of insanity.
If
you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
all or any one of the essential elements of the offense, or the
defendants participation in the offense, you must find the defendant not
guilty.
If
you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the
essential elements of the offense and the defendants participation
therein, and if you also find that the defendant has not established the
defense of insanity to a preponderance of the credible evidence, then
you must find the defendant guilty of the offense.
If
you find that the State has proved all the elements of the crime and
the defendants participation therein beyond a reasonable doubt, and if
you also find that the defendant has established the defense of insanity
by a preponderance of the credible evidence, your verdict must be not
guilty by reason of insanity and you shall so report and declare your
verdict.
A
verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity does not necessarily mean
that the defendant will be freed, or that the individual will be
indefinitely committed to a mental institution. Under
our law, if you find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, it
will then be for the court to conduct a further hearing and among other
matters determine whether or not the defendants insanity continues to
the present and whether defendant poses a danger to the community or to himself/herself. The resolution of those issues will ultimately determine what appropriate restrictions need to be placed on the defendant. Thus,
procedures exist to adequately provide for the defendant and to protect
the public in the event defendant is found not guilty by reason of
insanity.
VERDICTS
Again, you may return one of three verdicts:
(1) Not guilty.
(2) Guilty.
(3) Not guilty by reason of insanity.
|
| Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea 1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s) 2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty: a. You will have a criminal record3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail. 4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing. 5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution. 6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty. 7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty. 8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3 9. You could be put on Probation. 10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your drivers license for 6 months - 2 years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30. 11. You may be required to do Community Service. 12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty. 13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction. 14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation. 15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1 16. You may lose your right to vote. The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense. Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct: If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms. NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years; (2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years; (3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years; (4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months. 2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed: a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree; (2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree; b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree; (2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree; c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense; d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense; If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500 |
No comments:
Post a Comment