Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.8-2

The defendant is charged [in count__] with tampering with private communications. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of tampering with private communications when, knowing that

(he/she) does not have the consent of the sender or receiver, and being an employee,

officer or representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, (he/she) knowingly

divulges to another person the contents or nature of a telephonic or telegraphic

communication.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Defendant’s position

The first element is that the defendant was an employee, officer or representative of a telephone

or telegraph corporation.

Element 2 - Divulged contents

The second element is that (he/she) knowingly divulged to another person the contents or nature

of a telephonic or telegraphic communication. 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.>

Element 3 - Without consent

The third element is that the defendant knew that (he/she) did not have the consent of the sender

or receiver. 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.

Conclusion

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

employee, officer or representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, 2) (he/she)

knowingly divulged to another person the contents or nature of a telephonic or telegraphic

communication, and 3) (he/she) knew that (he/she) did not have the consent of the sender or

receiver.

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

of the crime of tampering with private communications, 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.