Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.4-1

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of: 1) the sworn testimony

of witnesses both on direct and cross examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2) the

exhibits that have been admitted into evidence; 3) any facts that the court judicially noticed; and

4) any stipulations of the parties.

In reaching your verdict, you should consider all the testimony and exhibits admitted into

evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the

facts are. These include:

• Arguments and statements by lawyers. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have

said in their closing arguments is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not

evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated

them, your memory of them controls. It is not proper for the attorneys to express their

opinions on the ultimate issues in the case or to appeal to your emotions.

• Testimony that has been excluded or stricken. [<Include if appropriate:> Some

testimony and exhibits have been admitted for limited purposes; whenever I have given a

limiting instruction, you must follow it.]

• The document called the “information,” which you will have with you at the time of

deliberation. The information is merely the formal manner of accusing a person of a

crime in order to bring (him/her) to trial. You must not consider the information as any

evidence of the guilt of the defendant, or draw any inference of guilt because (he/she) has

been charged with a crime. [<Include if appropriate:> You will note that each count in

the information contains within it the alleged time, date and location of the offense. The

state does not have to prove the exact time, date or location of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. However, the state must prove each element of each offense, including

identification of the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt.]

There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence

is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial

evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact

exists, even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction between direct

and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits you to give equal weight to

both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence.

Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain

facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which you may logically conclude that

the event in question did happen. By way of example, let us assume that it is a December night

and you’re preparing to retire for the evening. You look out the window and you see it is

snowing. You wake up the next morning, come to court, and testify that the night before it was

snowing in the area of your house. That is direct evidence of the fact that it snowed the night

before. You saw it and you came into court and testified to that fact.

Now assume that it is another December night, the weather is clear, there is no snow on the

ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next morning, you look out the window

and you see snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn. You come into court and you

testify to those facts. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground and

the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across your lawn is direct

evidence. That direct evidence, however, is circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time

during the night it snowed and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn.

The only practical difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when you have

direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you have to do is determine the believability of the

direct testimony given, the credibility of the witness. With circumstantial evidence, you must

first determine the credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testified to

did exist. Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events or the existence of those

facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and

ultimately, whether the crime alleged was committed by the accused.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it is circumstantial

evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of

life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in

the courtroom. In fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the

testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence,

therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from which you are asked to infer the existence of

another fact or set of facts. Before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial

evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense.