Lewdness (Victim less than 13 years of age)

(N.J.S.A. 2C:14‑4b(1)) [1]

Approved 2/25/02

The defendant is charged with the offense of lewdness, in that (he/she) is alleged to have (Summarize the appropriate portions of indictment).

The pertinent part of the statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-4b(1)) on which this indictment is based reads as follows:

A person commits an act of lewdness if:

(He/she) exposes (his/her) intimate parts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor or of any other person under circumstances where the actor knows or reasonably expects (he/she) is likely to be observed by a child who is less than 13 years of age where the actor is at least four years older than the child.

Therefore, the elements that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows:

1. That the defendant exposed (his/her) intimate parts;

2. That the defendant did so for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor and/or any other person;

3. That the defendant exposed (himself/herself) under circumstances where the actor knew or reasonably expected that (he/she) was likely to be observed by a child of less than 13 years of age;

4. That the child was less than 13 years of age; and

5. That the defendant was at least four years older than the child.

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant exposed (his/her) intimate parts. “Intimate parts” include the following body parts: sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast of a person. Specifically, the defendant in this case is charged with exposing (insert facts of case).

The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted with the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of (himself/herself) or any other person. (If charge is related to gratifying another, insert specifically alleged facts).

A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or a result thereof if it is a person's 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 a person is aware of the existence of such circumstances or a person believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if one really means to do what (he/she) does.[2]

Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts. It is not necessary for the State to produce a witness to testify that the defendant stated that (he/she) acted with a particular state of mind. It is within your power to find that proof of purpose has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inferences that may arise from the nature of the acts and circumstances surrounding the conduct in question.  The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant knew or reasonably expected that (he/she) was likely to be observed by a child under the age of 13.[3] Here, the State alleges       (Insert applicable facts)      .

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendant circumstances if a person is aware that (his/her) conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if a person is aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a result. One is said to act knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if (he/she) comprehends (his/her) acts.[4]

Like purpose, knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can often be determined only from inferences from conduct, words or acts.

The fourth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the victim of the alleged lewd act was less than 13 years of age. In this case, the State alleges that the victim was            years old.

The fifth element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was more than four years older than the victim. In this case, the State alleges that the defendant was            years old, and again, the victim was            years old.

If you find that the State has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty. If, however, the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find (him/her) not guilty.