Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.7-5

New, May 10, 2012

Evidence has been presented in this case indicating that the defendant was of limited or impaired

mental capacity at the time of the incident. If the defendant, because of this diminished capacity,

was unable to form the intent necessary to the crime(s) of <insert the crimes to which the defense

applies>, then the element of intent would not have been proven for (this / these) crimes.

An essential element of the crime of <insert offense>, with which the defendant is charged, is

that (he/she) acted with <insert the appropriate type of intent:>

• the specific intent to cause a specific result.

• recklessness.

• criminal negligence.

• the general intent to perform certain acts.

[<For specific intent:>

For the purposes of count __, <identify offense>, you must determine whether the evidence of

diminished capacity is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s ability to form

the specific intent necessary for <identify offense>. <Refer back to the intent instruction(s) for

the offense(s).> You must be satisfied from the defendant’s presentation that there is sufficient

evidence of the effects of (his/her) various mental disorders on (his/her) capacity to form the

specific intent to commit <identify offense>.]

[<For recklessness:>

For the purposes of count __, <identify offense>, you must determine whether the evidence of

diminished capacity is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s ability to be

aware of and consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risks. You must be satisfied

from the defendant’s presentation that there is sufficient evidence of the effects of (his/her)

various mental disorders on (his/her) capacity to be aware of such risks. <Refer back to the

intent instruction for the offense(s).>]

[<For criminal negligence:>

For the purposes of count __, <identify offense>, you must determine whether the evidence of

diminished capacity is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s ability to

perceive substantial and unjustifiable risks. You must be satisfied from the defendant’s

presentation that there is sufficient evidence of the effects of (his/her) various mental disorders

on (his/her) capacity to perceive of such risks. <Refer back to the intent instruction for the

offense(s).>]

[<For general intent:>

For the purposes of count __, <identify offense>, you must determine whether the evidence of

diminished capacity is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s capacity to

form the intent to <identify the specific acts of the crime>.

2]

In connection with this issue, you have heard testimony from <identify the expert witnesses>. In

assessing these opinions, you will bear in mind the instructions I previously gave you concerning

the weight to be accorded the testimony of expert witnesses, including the opinions based on

hypothetical questions.

You may also give weight to such relevant testimony as you find credible from lay witnesses

who have testified concerning the events surrounding the events that occurred.

The state has the burden to establish the element of the defendant’s intent to commit <insert

specific offense> beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not have to prove that he did

not have the intent. In deciding whether the defendant had the necessary intent, you must

consider all the evidence bearing on that issue, including the evidence of the defendant’s limited

or impaired mental capacity and his conduct before, during and after the alleged incident. If you

have a reasonable doubt on that issue, you must find (him/her) not guilty.

1 Diminished capacity, unlike intoxication, may be raised to negate either general or specific

intent. See State v. Gracewski, 61 Conn. App. 726, 736-37 (2001) (reckless indifference

manslaughter and risk of injury to a minor); see also State v. Shine, 193 Conn. 632, 640-42

(1984).

2 For example, if the defendant is charge with risk of injury to a minor the defendant would have

to form the intent to perform acts that are likely to impair the health of a child. See State v.

Gracewski, 61 Conn. App. 726, 736 (2001).