Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.8-2

In addition, the state can defeat the defendant’s claim of self-defense by proving one of the

statutory disqualifications to self-defense. The statute defining self-defense describes certain

circumstances in which a person is not justified in using any degree of physical force in self-defense against another.

<Include as appropriate:>

A. Provocation

B. Initial Aggressor

C. Combat by Agreement

A. Provocation

– § 53a-19 (c) (1)

(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using any degree of

physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) provokes the other person to use

physical force against (him/her).

In order to provoke the use of physical force by another, it is not enough that the defendant by

(his/her) conduct elicited the use of physical force by another; rather the defendant must have

embarked upon such conduct with the specific intent to provoke the other into using physical

force and intending to cause the other physical injury or death.

The defendant must have specifically intended to provoke another into using physical force, and

then used force to defend (himself/herself) from the ensuing use of force by the person provoked.

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (he/she)

did not provoke <insert name of decedent/complainant> into using physical force against

(him/her). To the contrary, you may only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory

disqualification if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

provoked the use of physical force by <insert name of decedent/complainant> against (him/her).

B. Initial aggressor

– § 53a-19 (c) (2)

(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using any degree of

physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) is the initial aggressor in the

encounter with the other person, and does not both withdraw from the encounter and effectively

communicate (his/her) intent to do so before using the physical force at issue in the case.

Under this provision, the state can prove that the defendant was not justified in using physical

force in self-defense by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) was the initial aggressor

in (his/her) encounter with <insert name of other person> and that (he/she) neither withdrew

from that encounter nor effectively communicated (his/her) intent to do so before using physical

force against <insert name of other person>.

To prove that the defendant was the initial aggressor in (his/her) encounter with <insert name of

other person>, the state need not prove that the defendant was the first person to use physical

force in that encounter. The initial aggressor can be the first person who threatened to use

physical force, or even the first person who appeared to threaten the imminent use of physical

force under circumstances.

To prove that the defendant did not withdraw and communicate (his/her) intent to do so, the state

must prove that (he/she) did not abandon the conflict in such a way that the fact of (his/her)

withdrawal was perceived by <insert name of other person> so that <insert name of other

person> was aware that there was no longer any danger from the original aggression.

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (he/she)

was not the initial aggressor or that (he/she) withdrew from the encounter and communicated

(his/her) intent to do so before (he/she) used physical force against <insert name of other

person>. To the contrary, you may only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory

disqualification if you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) was

the initial aggressor, did not withdraw from the encounter, and did not communicate (his/her)

intent to withdraw before using physical force.

C. Combat by agreement

– § 53a-19 (c) (3)

(One such / Another) circumstance under which a person is not justified in using any degree of

physical force in self-defense against another is when the physical force is the product of an

illegal combat by agreement.

Under this provision, it is not necessary that there be a formal agreement – such an agreement

may be inferred from the conduct of the parties. To infer such an agreement you must look at all

the circumstances leading up to and preceding the event in question as well as all of the

circumstances surrounding this event itself based on the entire evidence presented and your own

credibility assessments.

[<Include if the facts warrant:> This exception would not apply despite an agreement for mutual

combat if you further find that its terms were violated by <insert name of complainant/decedent>

and that (his/her) conduct toward the defendant was in violation of their agreement, and further

that the defendant knew of such violation. Violation means that <insert name of

complainant/decedent>’s use of force exceeded the terms of the agreement with the defendant,

and that it escalated beyond what had been agreed to as to either the extent or form of combat.]

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to prove that (his/her)

use of physical force was not the product of a combat by agreement. To the contrary, you may

only reject (his/her) defense on the basis of this statutory disqualification if you find that the state

has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant and <insert name of other alleged

combatant(s)> had engaged in combat by agreement.