Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.3-1

Note: This instruction is for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2011. Public Acts

2011, No. 11-165, § 1, deleted the requirement that the money, credit, goods, services,

property or medical information obtained be “in the name of the person.” Because of

numerous changes to the statutory definition of identity theft since 1999 when the crime

was first established, there are two earlier versions of this instruction in the archive. For

the instruction for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2009 and before October 1,

2011, see Instruction 10.3-1 (archived II). For the instruction for crimes committed before

October 1, 2009, see Instruction 10.3-1 (archived I).

Note: Identity theft is defined in § 53a-129a. The degree of identity theft depends on the

value of the items obtained and the age of the victim. See § 53a-129b (first degree); § 53a-

129c (second degree); § 53a-129d (third degree).

The defendant is charged [in count__] with identity theft in the (first / second / third) degree.

The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person commits identity theft when (he/she) knowingly uses personally identifying

information of another person to obtain [or attempt to obtain] (money / credit / goods

/ services / property / medical information

1) without the consent of such other person.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Knowingly used personal identifying information of another person

The first element is that the defendant knowingly used the personal identifying information of

the complainant. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or circumstances when

(he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. <See

Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

“Personal identifying information” means any name, number or other information that may be

used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual

including, but not limited to, such individual’s name, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, motor

vehicle operator’s license number, Social Security number, employee identification number,

employer or taxpayer identification number, alien registration number, government passport

number, health insurance identification number, demand deposit account number, savings

account number, credit card number, debit card number or unique biometric data such as

fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation.

Element 2 - Obtained property

The second element is that the defendant used the personal identifying information to obtain [or

attempt to obtain] (money / credit / goods / services / property / medical information). The

property that the defendant allegedly obtained is <identify the property>.

Element 3 - Without consent

The third element is that the defendant did not have the consent of <insert name of complainant>

to obtain this property in (his/her) name. A person does an act “without consent of another

person” when (he/she) lacks such other person’s agreement or assent to engage in the act.

[<Include element 4 only for first and second degree if the victim is under 60 years of age, and

only for first degree if the victim is over 60 years of age.>2

Element 4 - Value of property obtained

• <If victim is over 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property

obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of

complainant>’s personal identifying information. The value must exceed $5,000.

• <If victim is under 60 years of age:> The fourth element is the value of the property

obtained [or attempted to be obtained] by the defendant using <insert name of

complainant>’s personal identifying information. The value must exceed:

o First degree: $10,000.

o Second degree: $5,000.

For purposes of determining whether the state has proved the alleged degree of identity theft, the

value of the (money / credit / goods / services / property) shall be ascertained as follows: “Value”

here means the market value of the goods, services, or property at the time and place of the

crime. “Market value” means the price that would, in all probability, result from fair

negotiations between willing buyers and sellers at the time and place of the crime; the probability

being based upon the evidence in the case.

If you can determine the price the property sold for at the time of the crime, then that is the

controlling value. If the market value cannot be determined, then you should consider the

replacement cost of the goods or services within a reasonable time after the crime.]

[<Include element 5 only for first and second degree if the victim is over 60 years of age.>

Element 5 - Age of complainant

The fifth element is that the complainant was over 60 years of age at the time.]

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) knowingly

used <insert name of complainant>’s personal identifying information, 2) obtained [or attempted

to obtain] something of value, [and] 3) did so without the consent of <insert name of

complainant>, [4) the value of the property exceeded ($10,000 / $5,000), and 5) the complainant

was over 60 years of age.]

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of identity theft in the (first / second / third) degree, then you shall find the

defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 Medical information would only be relevant to third degree, as it has no assignable dollar value.

2 Pay close attention to the information if the offense has occurred over a period of time during

which the victim turned 60 years old. The value of the property misappropriated after the victim

turns 60 must be greater than $5,000 to qualify for first degree. If the state is charging two

counts, first degree for the theft after the victim turns 60, and second degree for the theft prior to

the victim’s birthday, there could be complicated issues of timing that would need to be

explained to the jury.