VANDALIZING RAILROAD CROSSING . 2C:33-14.1 model jury charge

 

VANDALIZING RAILROAD CROSSING DEVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14.1)model jury charge Count ________ of the indictment provides as follows: [READ COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT] This count charges the defendant with Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices in violation of a statute which provides as follows: Any person who [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] [defaces] [damages] [obstructs] [removes] [impairs] the operation of any railroad crossing warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of [the law][1] [or any other railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment] shall be guilty of a crime. . . In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That the defendant [defaced] [damaged] [obstructed] [removed] [impaired the operation of] any railroad crossing warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of [the law][2] [any railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment]; and (2) That the defendant acted purposely, knowingly or recklessly. The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant [defaced] [damaged] [obstructed] [removed] [impaired the operation of] any railroad crossing, warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of (the law)[3]] [any railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment.] The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly]. [A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if he/she is 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 that he/she had a particular purpose. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. 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 circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] OR [A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. Knowledge 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 that he/she had a particular knowledge. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] OR [A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[4] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] If the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. GRADING [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE] If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants [defacement] [damage] [obstruction] [removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the protection device] [the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [death] [serious bodily injury] to another person.  A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[5] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.[6]Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[7] If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused [death] [serious bodily injury] to another person, then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. OR If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants [defacement] [damage] [obstruction] [removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the protection device] [the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [bodily injury] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more]. A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[8] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[9] If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused [bodily injury to another person] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more], then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. [IF AN ACT OF GRAFFITI IS CHARGED] If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants action(s) involved an act of graffiti. An act of graffiti means the drawing, painting or making of any mark or inscription on public or private real or personal property without the permission of the owner. If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants action(s) involved an act of graffiti, then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices.[10] VANDALIZING RAILROAD CROSSING DEVICES (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-14.1) Count ________ of the indictment provides as follows: [READ COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT] This count charges the defendant with Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices in violation of a statute which provides as follows: Any person who [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly] [defaces] [damages] [obstructs] [removes] [impairs] the operation of any railroad crossing warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of [the law][1] [or any other railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment] shall be guilty of a crime. . . In order for the defendant to be found guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That the defendant [defaced] [damaged] [obstructed] [removed] [impaired the operation of] any railroad crossing warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of [the law][2] [any railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment]; and (2) That the defendant acted purposely, knowingly or recklessly. The first element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant [defaced] [damaged] [obstructed] [removed] [impaired the operation of] any railroad crossing, warning signal or protection device, including, but not limited to [safety gates] [electric bell] [electric sign] [or any other alarm or protection system authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation, which is required under the provisions of (the law)[3]] [any railroad property or equipment, other than administrative buildings, offices or equipment.] The second element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted [purposely] [knowingly] [recklessly]. [A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof if it is his/her conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if he/she is 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 that he/she had a particular purpose. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. 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 circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] OR [A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or the attendant circumstances if he/she is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or he/she is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result. Knowledge 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 that he/she had a particular knowledge. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of knowledge has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] OR [A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[4] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case.] If the State has failed to prove any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. GRADING [CHOOSE APPROPRIATE] If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants [defacement] [damage] [obstruction] [removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the protection device] [the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [death] [serious bodily injury] to another person.  A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[5] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.[6]Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[7] If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused [death] [serious bodily injury] to another person, then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. OR If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants [defacement] [damage] [obstruction] [removal] [impediment of] [the crossing warning signal] [the protection device] [the property] [the equipment] recklessly caused [bodily injury] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more]. A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his/her conduct or a result thereof when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him/her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation.[8] Recklessness is a state of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from ones conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary for the State to produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said he/she knew or believed that he/she was acting recklessly. His/Her state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine his/her conduct and actions, all that was said or done at that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances. It is within the power of the jury to find that the proof of recklessness has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences which you may draw from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the defendant as they have been presented in the evidence you have heard and seen in this case. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.[9] If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly caused [bodily injury to another person] [pecuniary loss of $2000 or more], then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. [IF AN ACT OF GRAFFITI IS CHARGED] If you find that the State has proven defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this offense, then you must determine whether or not the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants action(s) involved an act of graffiti. An act of graffiti means the drawing, painting or making of any mark or inscription on public or private real or personal property without the permission of the owner. If you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants action(s) involved an act of graffiti, then you must find him/her guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices. If, on the other hand, you find that the State has failed to prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him/her not guilty of this form of Vandalizing Railroad Crossing Devices.[10] [1] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. [2] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. [3] The statute cites N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 provides as follows:  Protections at grade crossings; group signals Every company operating on a fixed track or tracks, freight or passenger trains or cars, shall provide protection to pedestrians and the traveling public at every crossing of its tracks by any public road. Such protection may be in the form of safety gates, flagmen, electric bell, electric signs or other recognized system of alarm or protection approved by the Board of Public Utility Commissioners. When several crossings lie so close together that an audible signal at one crossing may be sufficiently heard at others near it, such crossings may be protected by such device or signals as will sufficiently protect all crossings in the group. When on any line or part thereof all traffic is discontinued for any part of the night, no crossing guards need be operated while traffic is so discontinued. This section shall not apply to street car lines or tracks used principally for street car purposes. The provisions of this section shall be construed to be mandatory and shall be operative without order or direction of the board.  N.J.S.A. 48:2-29 provides as follows: Protection at Grade Crossings Whenever it shall appear to the board that a public highway and a railroad or a street railway, or that a railroad and a street railway, cross one another at the same level and that conditions at such grade crossing make it necessary that gates be erected or that some other reasonable provision for the protection of the traveling public be adopted, the board may order the railroad or street railway company or both, to install such protective device or adopt such other reasonable provision for the protection of the traveling public at the crossing as in the discretion of the board shall be necessary.  [4] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [5] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [6] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1b. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, the definition appears appropriate here. [7] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, this definition appears appropriate here. [8] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [9] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, this definition appears appropriate here. [10] The court should utilize a special verdict sheet to ask the jury the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the act of graffiti.  [1] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. [2] See N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. [3] The statute cites N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 or N.J.S.A. 48:2-29. N.J.S.A. 48:12-54 provides as follows:  Protections at grade crossings; group signals Every company operating on a fixed track or tracks, freight or passenger trains or cars, shall provide protection to pedestrians and the traveling public at every crossing of its tracks by any public road. Such protection may be in the form of safety gates, flagmen, electric bell, electric signs or other recognized system of alarm or protection approved by the Board of Public Utility Commissioners. When several crossings lie so close together that an audible signal at one crossing may be sufficiently heard at others near it, such crossings may be protected by such device or signals as will sufficiently protect all crossings in the group. When on any line or part thereof all traffic is discontinued for any part of the night, no crossing guards need be operated while traffic is so discontinued. This section shall not apply to street car lines or tracks used principally for street car purposes. The provisions of this section shall be construed to be mandatory and shall be operative without order or direction of the board. N.J.S.A. 48:2-29 provides as follows: Protection at Grade Crossings Whenever it shall appear to the board that a public highway and a railroad or a street railway, or that a railroad and a street railway, cross one another at the same level and that conditions at such grade crossing make it necessary that gates be erected or that some other reasonable provision for the protection of the traveling public be adopted, the board may order the railroad or street railway company or both, to install such protective device or adopt such other reasonable provision for the protection of the traveling public at the crossing as in the discretion of the board shall be necessary. [4] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [5] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [6] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1b. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, the definition appears appropriate here. [7] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, this definition appears appropriate here. [8] See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(3). [9] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1a. While the cited statute limits this definition to chapters 11 through 15, this definition appears appropriate here. [10] The court should utilize a special verdict sheet to ask the jury the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the act of graffiti.

Vandalism

 Criminal Mischief 2C:17-3

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

Criminal Mischief 2C:17-3. a. Offense defined. A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he:

(1)Purposely or knowingly damages tangible property of another or damages tangible property of another recklessly or negligently in the employment of fire, explosives or other dangerous means listed in subsection a. of N.J.S. 2C:17-2; or

(2)Purposely, knowingly or recklessly tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property.

b. Grading. (1) Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor purposely or knowingly causes pecuniary loss of $2,000.00 or more, or a substantial interruption or impairment of public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service.

(2)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor causes pecuniary loss in excess of $500.00. It is a disorderly persons offense if the actor causes pecuniary loss of $500.00 or less.

(3)Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor damages, defaces, eradicates, alters, receives, releases or causes the loss of any research property used by the research facility, or otherwise causes physical disruption to the functioning of the research facility. The term "physical disruption" does not include any lawful activity that results from public, governmental, or research facility employee reaction to the disclosure of information about the research facility.

(4)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor damages, removes or impairs the operation of any device, including, but not limited to, a sign, signal, light or other equipment, which serves to regulate or ensure the safety of air traffic at any airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or any other aviation facility; however, if the damage, removal or impediment of the device recklessly causes bodily injury or damage to property, the actor is guilty of a crime of the third degree, or if it recklessly causes a death, the actor is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

(5)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor interferes or tampers with any airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or any other aviation facility; however if the interference or tampering with the airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or other aviation facility recklessly causes bodily injury or damage to property, the actor is guilty of a crime of the third degree, or if it recklessly causes a death, the actor is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

(6)Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor tampers with a grave, crypt, mausoleum or other site where human remains are stored or interred, with the purpose to desecrate, destroy or steal such human remains or any part thereof.

c. A person convicted of an offense of criminal mischief that involves an act of graffiti may, in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court, be required to pay to the owner of the damaged property monetary restitution in the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the act of graffiti and to perform community service, which shall include removing the graffiti from the property, if appropriate. If community service is ordered, it shall be for either not less than 20 days or not less than the number of days necessary to remove the graffiti from the property.

d. As used in this section:

(1)"Act of graffiti" means the drawing, painting or making of any mark or inscription on public or private real or personal property without the permission of the owner.

(2)"Spray paint" means any paint or pigmented substance that is in an aerosol or similar spray container.

Amended 1979, c.178, s.30; 1981, c.290, s.17; 1991, c.336, s.1, 1995, c.20, s.2; 1995, c.251, s.1; 1998, c.54, s.1; 1999, c.95, s.1.

trial Intervention Program (PTI) to dismiss NJ criminal charges for First time offenders in Superior Court

        Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) to dismiss NJ criminal charges for First time offenders in Superior Court

 

         Edited by Kenneth Vercammen from Judiciary Information Sheet

If you have no prior criminal charges, I recommended that my clients apply for PTI Pre Trial Intervention. Please read the details at https://www.njlaws.com/pretrial_intervention_programpti.html

             The PTI application form is available for downloading on the Judiciary's website at 

·       https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/12305_pti_app.pdf

Copies can also be obtained in the Criminal Division management office at the county courthouses. 

See also https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2018/n181023c.pdf?c=IkJ

 

    When you go to be interviewed, bring the Complaint, pay stubs, photo ID, and your entire file in connection with your matter. You must pay the $75.00 application fee.

 

         In support of your application for PTI the prosecutor and court will later review any letters or documents that are submitted to the Court on your behalf.  Please type up and deliver to my office a list of 15 reasons why the prosecutor should approve PTI within 10 days.  

      Upon receipt of the Pretrial Intervention Program Application, the Criminal Division staff will forward the application and statement to the prosecutor's office. 

The prosecutor's office must then provide a written response indicating their decision either to consent or to refuse to consent to further consider the application.  Pursuant to R.3:28- 3(b)(2), that written response must be provided to the defendant, defendant's attorney, and the Criminal Division within 14 days after receipt of the application. It should be noted that applications that contain a "yes" response to the question that asks whether the prosecutor has provided such consent does not remove the need for the prosecutor to provide a written response. Criminal Division staff will not consider the merits of the application until receipt of the prosecutor's written consent to further’ consider the application. See R. 3:28-3(b)(2). 

         I recommend very strongly that clients obtain letters from relatives or other individuals who know you who would be willing to write to the Court to indicate that there should not be incarceration.  These letters should set forth favorable aspects regarding your life and your future.  They should point out some of the good traits that you possess. They should also feel free to put any other reasons why the prosecutor should approve PTI. The letter should include your date of birth and complaint or indictment number. These letters are for your benefit and these instructions should be followed. These letters of reference should go to the Criminal Division, which interviewed you for PTI.

         Please bring an extra copy of all letters of reference, pay stubs and any other documents for the court just in case the court has lost the copies.   

         Kenneth Vercammen & Associates Law Office represents people charged with criminal offenses. We provide representation throughout New Jersey.  Criminal charges can cost you.  If convicted, you can face prison, fines over $10,000, jail, probation over 18 months, and other penalties.  Don't give up!  Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal cases. 

 

What is the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI)?

         The Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) provides defendants, generally first-time offenders, with opportunities for alternatives to the traditional criminal justice process of ordinary prosecution. PTI seeks to render early rehabilitative services, when such services can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior. The PTI program is based on a rehabilitative model that recognizes that there may be an apparent causal connection between the offense charged and the rehabilitative needs of a defendant. Further, the rehabilitative model emphasizes that social, cultural, and economic conditions often result in a defendant’s decision to commit crime. Simply stated, PTI strives to solve personal problems which tend to result from the conditions that appear to cause crime, and ultimately, to deter future criminal behavior by a defendant. 

 

If charged with an offense that there is a presumption of jail, the applicant a Statement of Compelling Reasons must be submitted for defendants who have: 

(1) a current charge that has a presumption of incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility (see section II "Current Charges"), or 

(2) a prior indictable/felony conviction (see section Ill "Prior Criminal Record") pursuant to R. 3:28-3(b)(1 ). 

 

A statement of compelling reasons is also required to be submitted for charges that carry a presumption against admission to PTI pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(b)(2). See R. 3:28- 1(e)(3). Specifically, there is a presumption against admission (1) for a defendant who is a public officer or employee, and the charge(s) involved their office or employment; or (2) where the charge(s) involves domestic violence and (a) was committed when a temporary or final restraining order was in effect, or (b) the charge(s) involves violence or the threat of violence. 

 

 

Standardized Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) Procedures 

 

Directive #14-05 promulgates for statewide use a standard set of forms for processing Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) cases through the Criminal and Probation Divisions of the Superior Court. Since December 1, 2005, the following language is used, replacing any corresponding forms now in use in the court vicinages: 

 

What Are the Benefits of the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI)?

         If PTI is successfully completed, there is no record of conviction, and the defendant avoids the stigma of a criminal conviction. Although no record of a conviction exists, a defendant may want to file for an expungement to remove any record of the original arrest. 

 

         Early intervention allows rehabilitative services to be provided soon after the alleged offense, in an attempt to correct the behavior that led to the offense. Some of the costs associated with the formal court process are eliminated through acceptance into PTI. PTI provides early resolution of a case, which serves the interests of the victim, the public and the defendant. PTI reduces the burden on the court and allows resources to be devoted to more serious criminals.

 

What are the Conditions for Participation in Pretrial Intervention? 

         Supervision under the PTI program may run from 12 months to three years and is provided by the Probation Division. Certain standard conditions are imposed on those accepted into PTI, such as, random urine monitoring, and assessments of fees, penalties, and fines. Usually two year minimum. Additional conditions may also be imposed to require the performance of community service, payment of restitution, and submission to psychological and/or drug and alcohol evaluations with compliance to recommended treatment programs. If a defendant successfully completes all the conditions of PTI, then the original charges are dismissed on the recommendation of the Criminal Division Manager with consent by the prosecutor, and there is no record of conviction. If a defendant does not successfully complete the conditions of PTI, then the defendant is terminated from the PTI program, and the case is returned to the ordinary course of prosecution. 

 

Who is Eligible for Pretrial Intervention (PTI)? 

         Any defendant who is charged with an indictable offense may apply. Admission guidelines stated in the Court Rules set the following criteria:

Age - PTI is designed for adults. Jurisdiction - Only defendants charged 

with indictable offenses in New Jersey may apply. Minor Violations - Charges that would likely result in a suspended sentence without probation or a fine are generally not eligible. Those charged with ordinance, health code and other similar violations are not eligible. Prior Record of Convictions - PTI generally excludes defendants who have been previously convicted. Parolees and Probationers - Generally excluded without prosecutor’s consent and considered only after consultation with parole and probation departments. Defendants Previously Diverted - Excludes defendants who have previously been granted a diversionary  program or conditional discharge.

 

How Does One Apply for Pretrial Intervention?

         Applications to PTI must be made no later than 28 days after indictment. There is a $75 non-refundable application fee. In certain instances, this fee may be waived. The application process includes an interview with the defendant by a staff member of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court. A written report is prepared detailing the decision for admittance or rejection into the PTI program. When a defendant is accepted into PTI on the recommendation of the Criminal Division, with the consent of the prosecutor and the defendant, the judge may postpone all further proceedings against the defendant for a period not to exceed 36 months.  The applicant may appeal a rejection to the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division within 10 days of the rejection.

 

1. You shall obey all federal, state, and municipal laws and ordinances. You shall notify your probation officer within 24 hours if you are arrested or issued a complaint summons in any jurisdiction.

2. You shall report to your probation officer as directed.

3. You shall answer all inquiries by your probation officer truthfully.

4. You shall permit your probation officer to visit your residence or any other suitable place.

5. You shall promptly report any change of address or residence to your probation officer.

6. You must obtain permission if you wish to move outside the state.

7. You shall seek and maintain gainful employment, and promptly notify your probation officer when you change your place of employment or find yourself out of work.

8. You shall cooperate in any test, treatment and/or counseling deemed necessary by your probation officer during the PTI period of postponement.

 

         If the court finds that you have not complied with the conditions of your PTI Supervision, the Court may modify the conditions of PTI Supervision, or terminate you from the program. If you are terminated from PTI Supervision, your charges will be reactivated, and criminal court proceedings will resume.

 

         Failure to comply with the payment requirements may result in further Court action including termination, attachment of your wages, filing of a civil judgment, or extension of your PTI Supervision for purposes of collection. 

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

(Phone) 732-572-0500

(Fax)   732-572-0030

Kenneth Vercammen is an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney where he handles Criminal, Municipal Court, and contested case. He is part of the first attorneys in NJ who passed the exam to become a Certified Municipal Court Law Attorney and approved by the Supreme Court on September 30, 2014.

Ken is author of the American Bar Association's new book “Criminal Law Forms” and often lectures to trial lawyers. As the Past Chair of the Municipal Court Section, he has served on its board for 10 years.  

He was awarded the Municipal Court Attorney of the Year by both the NJSBA and Middlesex County Bar Association. He also received the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award and the General Practitioner Attorney of the Year, now Solo Attorney of the Year.

He serves as is the Editor in Chief of the NJ Municipal Court Law Review. 

             For nine years he served as the Cranbury Township Prosecutor and also was a Special Acting Prosecutor in nine different towns. Ken has successfully handled over one thousand Municipal Court and Superior Court matters in the past 29 years. 

His private practice has devoted a substantial portion of professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. Appearing in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on Criminal and Municipal Court trials, civil and contested Probate hearings.  Ken also serves as the Editor of the popular legal website www.njlaws.com and related blogs. In Law School he was a member of the Law Review, winner of the ATLA trial competition and top ten in class.

             In his private life he has been a member of the NJ State champion Raritan Valley Road Runners master’s team and is a 4^th degree black belt.