## Facts

- Brian A. Worthy and K.B., a sixteen-year-old, had a long-standing friendship and frequent contact.
- Late at night on November 28, 1996, K.B. entered the passenger side of a parked car; Worthy suddenly entered the driver’s seat, and K.B.’s companion ran into the house.
- The State’s version indicated K.B. attempted to exit but was restrained, and the car moved while her feet scraped the street.
- K.B.’s brother pursued in another car and testified Worthy drove at high speeds and made a sharp turn into the opposite lane before stopping.
- K.B. testified she repeatedly asked to be taken back and that Worthy conditioned returning on the pursuers stopping; she also testified he appeared calm, in control, and did not threaten her.
- Worthy eventually stopped near K.B.’s sister’s house; they walked briefly and then separated.

## Issues

1. Whether, for third-degree criminal restraint under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2(a), the statutory mens rea “knowingly” applies to all material elements, including that the restraint occurred in circumstances exposing the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury.
2. Whether the jury charge improperly separated the “knowledge” requirement from the risk-of-serious-bodily-injury element, allowing conviction on an impermissibly lesser mental state.

## Decision

- Worthy was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal restraint and sentenced to an extended term of eight years’ imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility.
- The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the jury instructions did not clearly require the jury to find Worthy knowingly exposed the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury, as required by the statute.

## Legal Principles

- When a criminal statute sets out a single culpability term (e.g., “knowingly”) preceding a composite phrase, that mental state generally applies to each material element that follows, absent a clear contrary legislative intent.
- For N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2(a), the State must prove the defendant knowingly (1) restrained another unlawfully and (2) did so in circumstances the defendant knew exposed the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury.
- Jury instructions must connect the required mental state to each material element; a charge that suggests an attendant circumstance element is strict-liability or negligence-based misstates the law.
- An instructional error that removes or dilutes the mens rea for a material element warrants reversal because it permits conviction without proof of an element of the offense.

## Conclusion

The conviction for third-degree criminal restraint was reversed because the jury charge failed to make clear that the defendant had to act knowingly with respect to the risk-of-serious-bodily-injury element, requiring a new trial with a correct mens rea instruction.


State v. Worthy, 329 N.J. Super. 109, 746 A.2d 1063 (App. Div. 2000)