Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.1-3

Note: In the following instruction, two offenses are referred to: the “conspiracy offense”

and the “substantive offense.” As an example, assume that during the course of a robbery

an innocent bystander is shot and killed by one of three coparticipants in the commission of

the robbery. The defendant, who did not commit the murder, is charged with robbery,

conspiracy to commit robbery, and murder under Pinkerton. The “conspiracy offense”

would be robbery, and the “substantive offense” would be murder.

This statute does not define a separate crime, but a separate theory of liability. It should be

included in the instruction defining the substantive offense, following the elements of that

offense. If the state presents alternative theories of vicarious liability, the jury must be

unanimous. See Introduction to Vicarious Liability.

The defendant is charged in count __ with <insert substantive offense>, even though the state is

not alleging that the defendant directly participated in the commission of the <insert substantive

offense>. The defendant is also charged, in count __, with conspiracy to commit <insert

conspiracy offense>. There is a doctrine in our law, commonly referred to as the Pinkerton

doctrine, that provides that once a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy is established beyond

a reasonable doubt, (he/she) may be held criminally liable for all of the criminal acts of the other

coconspirators that are within the scope of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

For you to find the defendant guilty of <insert substantive offense> under the principle of

vicarious liability, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Conspiracy

The first element is that the defendant conspired to commit [one of] the following crime[s]:

<insert conspiracy offense(s)>. Proof of this element will depend on your deliberations

pertaining to count <insert the number of the count(s) charging the defendant with conspiracy>.

The defendant cannot be found guilty of <insert substantive offense> unless you find (him/her)

also guilty of conspiracy to commit <insert conspiracy offense(s)>.

Element 2 - Crime committed by a coconspirator

The second element is that a member of the conspiracy, in this case <insert named of alleged

coconspirator>, committed <insert substantive offense>. [<Include if appropriate:> <insert

named of alleged coconspirator> is not on trial today, and you do not need to render a verdict as

to (his/her) guilt or innocence. However, the state has presented evidence, which must convince

you beyond a reasonable doubt, that <insert named of alleged coconspirator> and the defendant

were members of the conspiracy and that <insert named of alleged coconspirator> committed

the <insert substantive offense>, the elements of which I have already explained to you.]

Element 3 - Within scope of and in furtherance of conspiracy

The third element is that <insert named of alleged coconspirator>, when (he/she) committed the

<insert substantive offense>, was acting within the scope of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The phrase “in furtherance of” imposes the requirement of a relationship between the underlying

common design of the conspiracy to commit <insert conspiracy offense(s)> and the <insert

substantive offense>. It means that the <insert substantive offense> was committed for the

purpose of carrying out or achieving the object of the conspiracy.

Element 4 – Reasonably foreseeable

The fourth element is that it was reasonably foreseeable that <insert substantive offense> would

be committed. You must find, depending on all the circumstances you find proved by credible

evidence, that the crime of <insert substantive offense> was reasonably foreseeable as a

necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy.

Conclusion

In summary, you may find the defendant guilty of <insert substantive offense> on the basis of

Pinkerton liability if you unanimously agree that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt

that 1) the defendant conspired to commit [one of] the following crime[s]: <insert conspiracy

offense(s)>, 2) a member of that conspiracy committed <insert substantive offense>, 3) the

commission of <insert substantive offense> was within the scope of and in furtherance of the

conspiracy, and 4) the commission of <insert substantive offense> was reasonably foreseeable as

a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of <insert substantive offense>, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the

other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

[<If also submitted under a theory of accessorial liability:> As I have already instructed you, the

state is also claiming that the defendant is guilty of <insert substantive offense> as an accessory.

Your possible verdicts as regards this count would be not guilty, guilty as an accessory, guilty as

a coconspirator, or guilty as both an accessory and a coconspirator. You must all unanimously

agree which of these verdicts will be returned.

1]

1 See State v. Martinez, 278 Conn. 598, 619-20 (2006).