In this interlocutory appeal the court considers the first element of third-degree endangering an injured victim, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a), as applied to the conduct of third parties who allegedly aid or abet another person after that person injures the victim. The State alleges defendants aided their son after he shot the victim and left him for dead. More particularly, the State claims defendants failed to call 9-1-1 emergency services after defendants arrived at the scene of the injury, observed the injured victim, and learned he was shot. Crucially, the State does not allege defendants aided or assisted their son in causing the injuries.
On appeal, the court affirms the Law Division order reconsidering and reversing an earlier order that denied defendants' motion to dismiss the endangering count. Discerning no procedural irregularity in the court's reconsideration of the interlocutory order under review, the court considers de novo the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2, as it applies to those who aid or assist another person who caused bodily injury to the victim.
The court concludes, as did the trial judge, defendants cannot be held liable for aiding or abetting their son within the meaning of the endangering statute because defendants did not knowingly aid their son in causing bodily injury to the victim. Accordingly, the court holds a third party cannot be held liable under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a), unless the third party "knowingly solicited, aided, encouraged, purposely attempted or knowingly agreed to aid another person in causing bodily injury to the victim" as reflected in the pertinent model jury charge. See Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Endangering Injured Victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2)" (rev. Mar. 14, 2016).