(1)"Course of conduct" means repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person or repeatedly conveying, or causing to be conveyed, verbal or written threats or threats conveyed by any other means of communication or threats implied by conduct or a combination thereof directed at or toward a person.

(2)"Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions.

(3)"Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling or any other person who regularly resides in the household or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household.

b.A person is guilty of stalking, a crime of the fourth degree, if he purposefully or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family or to fear the death of himself or a member of his immediate family.

c.A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he commits the crime of stalking in violation of an existing court order prohibiting the behavior.

d.A person who commits a second or subsequent offense of stalking against the same victim is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

e.A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he commits the crime of stalking while serving a term of imprisonment or while on parole or probation as the result of a conviction for any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.

f.This act shall not apply to conduct which occurs during organized group picketing.

L.1992,c.209,s.1; amended 1996, c.39, s.1; 1998, c. 17, s.3; 1999, c.47, s.1; 2001, c.220, s.2.

2C:12-10.1. Conviction for stalking, permanent restraining order

3. a. A judgment of conviction for stalking shall operate as an application for a permanent restraining order limiting the contact of the defendant and the victim who was stalked.

b. A hearing shall be held on the application for a permanent restraining order at the time of the verdict or plea of guilty unless the victim requests otherwise. This hearing shall be in Superior Court. A permanent restraining order may grant the following specific relief:

(1) An order restraining the defendant from entering the residence, property, school, or place of employment of the victim and requiring the defendant to stay away from any specified place that is named in the order and is frequented regularly by the victim.

(2) An order restraining the defendant from making contact with the victim, including an order forbidding the defendant from personally or through an agent initiating any communication likely to cause annoyance or alarm including, but not limited to, personal, written, or telephone contact with the victim, the victim's employers, employees, or fellow workers, or others with whom communication would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the victim.

c. The permanent restraining order entered by the court subsequent to a conviction for stalking as provided in this act may be dissolved upon the application of the stalking victim to the court which granted the order.

d. Notice of permanent restraining orders issued pursuant to this act shall be sent by the clerk of the court or other person designated by the court to the appropriate chiefs of police, members of the State Police and any other appropriate law enforcement agency or court.

e. Any permanent restraining order issued pursuant to this act shall be in effect throughout the State, and shall be enforced by all law enforcement officers.

f. A violation by the defendant of an order issued pursuant to this act shall constitute an offense under subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:29-9 and each order shall so state. Violations of these orders may be enforced in a civil or criminal action initiated by the stalking victim or by the court, on its own motion, pursuant to applicable court rules. Nothing in this act shall preclude the filing of a criminal complaint for stalking based on the same act which is the basis for the violation of the permanent restraining order.

L.1996,c.39,s.3.

At the end of the trial, the Judge will read the following Instructions and Law to the Jury: STALKING1

(N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10)

Count of this indictment charges defendant with the crime of stalking.

(Read Indictment)

The applicable statute provides, in pertinent part, that:

A person is guilty of stalking....if he purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or a member of his immediate family or to fear the death of himself or a member of his immediate family.

In order for you to find defendant guilty, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. that defendant purposefully or knowingly engaged in a course of conduct directed at a specific person; and 2. that defendant's conduct was such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death to (himself/herself) or to a member of (his/her) immediate family. 3. (Charge if applicable: that defendant's conduct did not occur during organized group picketing).

The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant purposefully or knowingly engaged in a course of conduct directed at a specific person. A person acts purposefully 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. Aperson acts purposefully with respect to attendant circumstances if (he/she) believes or hopes that they exist. A person acts purposefully if (he/she) acts with design, with a specific intent, with a particular object or purpose, or if (he/she) means to do what (he/she) does. Purpose is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only 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 that the State produce witnesses to testify that an accused said that (he/she) had a certain state of mind when (he/she) 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 defendant's acts and conduct, from all that (he/she) said and did at the particular time and place, and from all surrounding circumstances. 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 if (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. As with purpose, knowledge is a condition of the mind that cannot be seen and that can be determined only by inferences from conduct, words or acts. "Course of conduct" means repeatedly maintaining visual or physical proximity to a person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written threats or threats implied by conduct or a combination thereof directed at or toward a person. "Repeatedly" means on two or more occasions. The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the course of conduct was such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury or death to (himself/herself) or a member of (his/her) immediate family. "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.2 "Immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, sibling or any other person who regularlyresides in the household or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household.

(Charge if Applicable)

The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that defendant's conduct did not occur during organized group picketing.

If you find that the State has proved each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant guilty of stalking. If, however, you find that the State has failed to prove any element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find defendant not guilty.

[Where the degree of the offense is in question, the following should be

charged, if applicable.]3

Stalking is ordinarily a crime of the fourth degree. It is, however, a crime of the third degree if defendant, in committing the crime of stalking:

[Charge the appropriate alternative]

a. Violated an existing court order prohibiting the behavior;

or

b. Committed a second or subsequent offense of stalking against the same victim;

or

c. Was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction for any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the UnitedStates.4 If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime of stalking, but do not find that the State has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in committing the crime, defendant (charge as appropriate: violated an existing court order prohibiting the behavior, committed a second or subsequent offense of staking against the same victim, and/or was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as a result of a conviction for any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States), then your verdict must be guilty of fourth-degree stalking. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the crime of stalking and further find that the State has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in committing the crime, defendant (charge the appropriate: violated an existing court order prohibiting the behavior, committed a second or subsequent offense of staking against the same victim, and/or committed the crime while serving a term of imprisonment or while on parole or probation as a result of a conviction for any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States), then your verdict must be guilty of third-degree stalking.

1 This charge has been revised to reflect statutory amendments effective March 12, 1999. L. 1999 c. 47. These amendments and this charge apply only to incidents that occurred after March 12, 1999.

2 See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1

3 In most cases, where degree is in question, the trial court, after the jury returns its verdict of guilty to stalking, should then try the issue of degree before the same jury sequentially; first taking whatever additional proofs are necessary, then charging the jury with this additional language, under the principles set forth in State v. Chenique-Puey, 145 N.J. 334 (1996) and State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. 189 (1996).