Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.11-1

Note: “Possess” is defined by General Statutes § 53a-3 (2) as “to have physical possession

or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property.” A complete

instruction on possession may require explanations of constructive possession and

nonexclusive possession if relevant to the case. Tailor this instruction according to the

specific allegations of possession.

“Possession” means either having the (substance / object) on one’s person or otherwise having

control over the (substance / object), that is, knowing where it is and being able to access it.

Possession also requires knowledge. The defendant must have knowingly possessed the

(substance / object). A person acts knowingly with respect to the possession of something when

(he/she) is aware that (he/she) is in possession of it and is aware of the character of it. The state

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that (he/she) was in possession of

a <insert substance or object allegedly possessed>. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

Constructive possession

“Possession” does not mean that one must have the illegal (substance/object) upon one’s person.

Rather, a person who, although not in actual possession, knowingly has the power and the

intention at a given time to exercise control over a thing is deemed to be in constructive

possession of that item. As long as the (substance / object) is or was in a place where the

defendant could, if (he/she) wishes, go and get it, it is in (his/her) possession.

The mere presence of the defendant (at the premises / in the vehicle) where the (substance /

object) is found is not sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. However,

presence may be a material and probative factor for you to consider along with all of the other

evidence.

If the defendant was the only person occupying the (premises / vehicle), then you may infer that

(he/she) was in possession of the (substance / object), if such inference is reasonable under all

the circumstances of the case.

If the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the premises where the illegal item is found, it

may not be inferred that (he/she) knew of the presence of the illegal item and had control of it,

unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to support that

inference. If the evidence shows that more than one person had access to the (premises /

vehicle), i.e., there was more than one occupant of the (premises / vehicle), then the defendant’s

knowledge and intent to possess the (substance / object) must be established by evidence other

than the mere fact that the defendant, along with others, occupied or had access to the (premises /

vehicle) where the (substance / object) was found.