CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.7-1
Intoxication
There has been some evidence to the effect that the defendant was under the influence of an
intoxicant, namely <insert type of intoxicant>, at the time of the alleged act[s]. The statute
pertaining to intoxication reads in pertinent part as follows:
intoxication shall not be a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an
offense evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant
whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the crime charged.
“Intoxication” is defined by statute as a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities
resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.
If you find that the defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time of the alleged
act[s], you must then determine what effect, if any, this voluntary intoxication had on (his/her)
ability to form the specific intent required to commit the alleged crime[s].
Note that intoxication is not a defense to or an excuse for the commission of a crime. It is only
relevant to negate an element of the crime charged, such as intent. If you find that the defendant
was intoxicated at the time of the crime, you may take this fact into consideration in determining
whether (he/she) was in such a state of intoxication as to be incapable of forming the required
specific intent, which is a necessary element for the commission of the crime[s] of <insert
crime(s) charged>.
If you believe that the defendant, although intoxicated, was still capable of forming a specific
criminal intent, then the defendant’s responsibility is the same as if (he/she) were not intoxicated.
You must first decide whether the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime; and
second, whether the defendant was incapable of forming an intent to commit the acts constituting
the crime[s] of <insert crime(s) charged>. Remember, the defendant does not have to prove that
(he/she) was intoxicated. The state always has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was capable of forming the required intent. Any degree of intoxication, not
merely total intoxication, may be considered in determining whether the defendant possessed the
requisite intent.
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
0959068e54b9e2bfe3f6b1dad0e468f58b8ab5f6a757f7eaca18a0ccce3a1016
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.