Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.2-2

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 commission of the crime, (he/she) intentionally does or omits to do

anything which, under the circumstances as (he/she) believes them to be, is an act or

omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in

(his/her) commission of the crime.

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 did anything that, under the circumstances

as (he/she) believed them to be, was an act constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct

planned to culminate in (his/her) commission of the crime of <insert substantive offense>. To be

a substantial step, the conduct must be strongly corroborative of the defendant’s criminal

purpose.

1 The act or acts must constitute more than mere preparation. The defendant’s conduct

must be at least the start of a line of conduct that will lead naturally to the commission of a

crime. In other words, it must appear to the defendant that it was at least possible that the crime

could be committed if (he/she) continued on (his/her) course of conduct.

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 a

substantial step towards the commission of the crime. 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 took a substantial step toward the

commission of that crime, 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.

1 General Statutes § 53a-49 (b) (providing examples of substantial steps).