Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 10.8-4

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

mechanical overhearing of a conversation, which are defined in § 53a-187. This instruction

is for mechanical overhearing of a conversation. See also Illegal Wiretapping, Instruction

10.8-3.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with eavesdropping. The statute defining this offense

reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in mechanical

overhearing of a conversation.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Eavesdropping by mechanical device

The first element is that the defendant unlawfully listened in on or recorded a conversation or

discussion, at which (he/she) was not present, by means of any mechanical instrument, device or

equipment. “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law.

Element 2 - Without consent

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

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

in on the conversation, 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 listen in on the conversation. If the

overhearing is unintentional, 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

conversation. 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 unlawfully

listened in on a conversation or discussion by some mechanical means, 2) (he/she) did not have

the consent of either party to the conversation or discussion, and 3) (he/she) intended to listen in

on it.

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.