Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.8-3

Note: Section 53a-189 contains two ways that eavesdropping occurs, wiretapping and

mechanical overhearing of a conversation. This instruction is for wiretapping. See also

Eavesdropping, Instruction 10.8-4.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with eavesdropping by unlawful wiretapping. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Wiretapping

The first element is that the defendant engaged in illegal wiretapping. “Wiretapping” means the

intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a

communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than the sender or receiver of

the communication by means of any instrument, device or equipment.

“Cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal

Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio

telephones.

Element 2 - Without consent

The second element is that the defendant did not have the consent of either party to the

communication. If (he/she) received permission from one of the parties to the conversation to

make a recording of the communication, then (he/she) cannot be found guilty of eavesdropping.

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.

Element 3 - Intent

The third element is that the defendant intended to overhear or record the communication. If the

overhearing is unintentional, involving the malfunctioning of telephonic equipment, then

(he/she) cannot be found guilty of eavesdropping. To be guilty of the offense of eavesdropping,

there must be a deliberate and wilful intention to overhear the communication. A person acts

“intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result.

<See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Conclusion

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

unlawful wiretapping, 2) (he/she) did not have the consent of either party to the communication,

and 3) (he/she) intended to overhear or record the communication

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

of the crime of eavesdropping, 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.