Recent NJ Appellate Decision Clarifies ‘Endangering an Injured Victim NJ Statute’

On February 7, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision in State of New Jersey v. Cindy Keogh and David Keogh, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025), in which it clarified that a charge of Endangering an Injured Victim, under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a), is limited to those directly involved in causing an injury. The Appellate Division held that post-injury conduct alone does not fall within the scope of the statute.

The Facts and Procedural History in the Keogh Case
On January 9, 2019, at 5:45 p.m. Ryan Keogh fatally shot Terrance Coulanges at the Keogh family residence. One minute later, at 5:46 p.m., Ryan called his mother, Cindy Keogh. Cindy arrived home at 5:54 p.m., nine minutes after the shooting, and contacted Ryan’s father, David Keogh, who arrived home by 6:58 p.m. Cindy Keogh did not call 9-1-1 until 7:36 p.m. The medical examiner opined that the cause of death was a “perforating gunshot wound to left chest and perforating gunshot wound of right thigh with re-entry and exit gunshot wound through the left thigh.”

Ryan was subsequently convicted of murder and weapons charges. At trial, Ryan’s forensic pathology expert opined that Terrance Coulanges “likely . . . bled to the point of death in two to three minutes,” and that that one of the shots “was so injurious there wouldn’t have been any opportunity to render aid.”

Cindy and David Keogh were charged with Endangering an Injured Victim, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a), for allegedly arriving at the scene after the shooting and delaying calling 9-1-1. They were not accused of aiding in the shooting itself.

Initially, the trial court denied their motion to dismiss the indictment. However, upon reconsideration, the trial court found that the statute did not apply to third parties who only acted after the injury occurred and dismissed the charges. The State appealed, arguing for a broader interpretation of the statute.

What Does the ‘Endangering an Injured Victim NJ Statute’ Require?
The Appellate Division reviewed the statutory language of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a), which penalizes individuals who either cause bodily harm or “solicit, aid, encourage, or agree to aid” someone else in causing harm and then leave the scene knowing the victim is incapacitated. The Appellate Division held that although not the model of clarity, the plain language of the statute suggests a third party’s liability is limited to actively assisting the perpetrator before the bodily injury was inflicted, and not after. Actions taken after the injury, such as delaying calling 9-1-1, do not meet the statutory requirements.

Model Jury Charges and Legislative Intent
The Appellate Division held that its interpretation of the statute was also supported by the relevant model jury charges, Model Jury Charges (Criminal), “Endangering Injured Victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2)” (rev. Mar. 14, 2016). The model charges provide that liability applies only to those who knowingly caused or assisted in causing the victim’s injury.

The Appellate Division court found that the statute’s legislative history supported its interpretation, as earlier drafts of the law had included broader language addressing mere “participants” in a crime; however, the final version of the statute deliberately narrowed liability to active participants in the causation of harm.

Application of the Statute to the Keogh Case
In the Keogh case, there was no evidence that Cindy or David Keogh participated in causing Coulanges’s injuries. The court found that their alleged failure to call 9-1-1 promptly after arriving at the scene did not meet the requirements of the Endangering an Injured Victim Statute. The court held that these actions, while potentially relevant to other charges, were insufficient for liability under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a).

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on the Endangering an Injured Victim NJ Statute
The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Keogh underscores the narrow scope of liability under the Endangering an Injured Victim Statute. The statute applies only to those directly involved in causing harm or aiding in its causation. Post-injury actions, such as failing to call for help, do not satisfy the statute’s requirements. This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal statutes must be interpreted strictly and are not extended beyond their plain language.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.