Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.6-6

Note: When evidence of the other misconduct is being offered to show that the defendant

engaged in aberrant and compulsive criminal sexual behavior, see Other Misconduct -

Criminal Sexual Behavior, Instruction 2.6-13.

The state has offered evidence of other acts of misconduct of the defendant. This is not being

admitted to prove the bad character, propensity or criminal tendencies of the defendant. Such

evidence is being admitted solely to show or establish: <insert one or more of the following:>

• the defendant’s intent.

• the identity of the person who committed the crimes alleged.

• malice on the part of the defendant against the (complainant/decedent).

• a motive for the commission of the crimes alleged.

• that the commission of the crimes follows a common plan or scheme.2

• absence of mistake or accident on the part of the defendant.

• the defendant’s knowledge.

• a system of criminal activity being engaged in by the defendant.

• an element of the crime of <insert name of offense>.

• the complete story as presented by the prosecution.

You may not consider such evidence as establishing a predisposition on the part of the defendant

to commit any of the crimes charged or to demonstrate a criminal propensity.

You may consider such evidence if you believe it and further find that it logically and rationally3

supports the issue[s] for which it is being offered by the state, but only as it may bear on the

issue[s] of <describe purpose of admitting evidence>.

On the other hand, if you do not believe such evidence, or even if you do, if you find that it does

not logically and rationally support the issue[s] for which it is being offered by the state, namely

<describe purpose of admitting evidence>, then you may not consider that testimony for any

purpose.

You may not consider evidence of other misconduct of the defendant for any purpose other than

the one[s] I’ve just told you, because it may predispose your mind uncritically to believe that the

defendant may be guilty of the offense here charged merely because of the alleged other

misconduct. For this reason, you may consider this evidence only on the issue[s] of <describe

purpose of admitting evidence>, and for no other purpose.

1 See Code of Evidence § 4-5 (c). The purposes listed are intended to be illustrative rather than

exhaustive. See Commentary to § 4-5.

2 See State v. Randolph, 284 Conn. 328 (2007), for a discussion of the limitations of the common

plan or scheme exception in proving identity.

3 Consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Ortiz, 343 Conn. 566, 598 (2022), the

phrase “logically, rationally and conclusively,” which previously appeared twice in this

instruction, was changed to “logically and rationally.”