Bindinglaw

CT · jury_instructions

Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.2-1

Attempt -- § 53a-49 (a) (1)

activein force · 2015-11-17 – presentas-observed

The defendant is charged [in count __] with attempt to commit <insert substantive offense>.

The statute defining attempt reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of mental

state required for the commission of the crime, (he/she) intentionally engages in

conduct which would constitute the crime if attendant circumstances were as (he/she)

believes them to be.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Intent

The first element is that the defendant had the kind of mental state required for commission of

the crime of <insert substantive offense>. The intent for that crime is the intent to <insert intent

required for substantive offense>.

Element 2 - Conduct

The second element is that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct that would constitute

the crime of <insert substantive offensive> if attendant circumstances were as (he/she) believed

them to be. “Attendant circumstances” is generally understood to mean the facts surrounding an

event.

Conclusion

If, upon all the evidence, you conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had formed

in (his/her) mind the intention to commit <insert substantive crime> as it has been defined for

you, you must next consider whether (he/she) intentionally did anything that would constitute the

crime if the circumstances were as (he/she) believed them to be. In other words, the state must

prove both intent and conduct beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

intended to commit <insert substantive crime> and engaged in conduct that would constitute that

crime if circumstances were as (he/she) believed them to be, 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 either of these elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

Provenance

Source
jud.ct.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-23
Edition
2026-08-23
Content hash
3d7796344813f8e17964a5e4e2fc8f894aea7982bb18d857a35e7e31720b84e2
View the official source →

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.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.