Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.2-3

There has been some evidence presented with regard to the defense of renunciation of criminal

purpose. The defendant claims that (he/she) abandoned (his/her) effort to commit the crime

before (his/her) actions violated the law. The statute defining this defense reads in pertinent part

as follows:

when the actor’s conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt it shall be a defense

that (he/she) abandoned (his/her) effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented

its commission, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary

renunciation of (his/her) criminal purpose.

Renunciation is not voluntary if it is motivated, in whole or in part, by circumstances not present

or apparent at the inception of the actor’s course of conduct that increase the probability of

detection or apprehension or that make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal

purpose. Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal

conduct or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim.

The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever with respect to this defense. The state has the

burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the defendant is

entitled to an acquittal if the state fails to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) the

defendant’s renunciation of (his/her) criminal purpose was complete and voluntary; OR 2) that

the defendant took affirmative steps and acts that served to prevent the commission of the crime

attempted.

1 General Statutes § 53a-50.