Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.3-2

What a person’s intention was is usually a matter to be determined by inference. No person is

able to testify that (he/she) looked into another’s mind and saw therein a certain knowledge or a

certain purpose or intention to do harm to another. Because direct evidence of the defendant’s

state of mind is rarely available, intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. The only

way a jury can ordinarily determine what a person’s intention was at any given time is by

determining what the person’s conduct was and what the circumstances were surrounding that

conduct and from that infer what (his/her) intention was.

To draw such an inference is the proper function of a jury, provided of course that the inference

drawn complies with the standards for inferences as explained in connection with my instruction

on circumstantial evidence. The inference is not a necessary one. You are not required to infer a

particular intent from the defendant’s conduct or statements, but it is an inference that you may

draw if you find it is reasonable and logical. I again remind you that the burden of proving intent

beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state.

[<If the defendant has testified about (his/her) intent:>

In this case, the defendant has testified as to (his/her) intent. You should consider my earlier

instruction on evaluating the defendant’s testimony as you would any other witness.]

[<If evidence of motive has been introduced:>

Evidence of motive, or the lack of it, may also be considered by you in determining the issue of

intent. <See Motive, Instruction 2.6-2.>]