LEGAL GUIDE
Written by attorney Kenneth Albert Vercammen | Mar 24, 2011

ELUDING A POLICE OFFICER (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b)

ELUDING A POLICE OFFICER (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b) The statute on which this charge is based reads as follows: `Any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street or highway in this state who knowingly flees or attempts to elude any police or law enforcement officer after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle to a full stop commits [the] crime of [eluding]. In order to convict the defendant of eluding, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following six (6) elements: 1. That was operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway in this state. 2. That was a police or law enforcement officer. 3. That signaled to bring the vehicle to a full stop. 4. That knew that the officer had signaled him to bring the vehicle to a full stop. 5. That knew that was a police or law enforcement officer. 6. That defendant knowingly fled or attempted to elude the officer. In order for you to find that the defendant fled or attempted to elude the police, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he was being pursued by police officers, but still did not stop.1 1 State v. Mendez, 345 N.J. Super. 498, 507-509 (App. Div. 2001). ELUDING AN OFFICER 2D AND 3D DEGREE N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b Page 2 of 3 A person acts knowingly with respect to the attendant circumstances of his conduct if heis aware that such circumstances exist, or is aware of a high probability of their existence. "Knowing" or "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have the same meaning. Knowledge is a condition of the mind which cannot be seen and can only be determined by inferences from conduct, words or acts. A state of mind is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. Therefore, it is not necessary, members of the jury, that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that he had a certain state of mind when he engaged in a particular act. It is within your power to find that such proof has been furnished beyond a reasonable doubt by inference which may arise from the nature of his acts and his conduct, and from all that he said and did at the particular time and place, and from all of the surrounding circumstances.

Category:

News & Politics (http://www.youtube.com/news)

Tags:

Rate this guide


Can’t find what you’re looking for?


Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer