Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 3.3-1

The defendant is charged [in count __] with conspiracy to commit <insert object of conspiracy>.

I have already defined for you the crime and all the elements of <insert object of conspiracy>.

The statute defining conspiracy reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of conspiracy when, with the intent that conduct constituting a

crime be performed, (he/she) agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause

the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in

pursuance of such conspiracy.

To constitute the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove the following elements beyond a

reasonable doubt: 1) there was an agreement between the defendant and one or more persons to

engage in conduct constituting the crime of <insert object of conspiracy>, which conspiracy the

defendant specifically intended to join; 2) there was an overt act in furtherance of the subject of

the agreement by any one of those persons; and 3) the defendant specifically intended to commit

the crime of <insert object of conspiracy>.

The size of the defendant’s role does not determine whether (he/she) may be convicted of

conspiracy. Rather, what is important is whether the defendant wilfully participated in the

activities of the conspiracy with knowledge of its illegal ends. Participation in a single act in

furtherance of the conspiracy is enough to sustain a finding of knowing participation.

Element 1 - Agreement

The first element is that there was an agreement between two or more persons. It is not

necessary for the state to prove that there was a formal or express agreement between them.

3 It

is sufficient to show that the parties intentionally engaged in a mutual plan to do a criminal act.4

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that there was an agreement because conspiracies,

by their very nature, are formed in secret and only rarely can be proved by other than

circumstantial evidence.5 It is not necessary to establish that the defendant and the defendant’s

alleged coconspirators signed papers, shook hands, or uttered the words “we have an agreement”

but rather a conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused.6

The mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the object of the agreement without

cooperation or agreement to cooperate, however, is not sufficient to make one a party to a

conspiracy to commit the criminal act. Mere presence at the scene of the crime, even when

coupled with knowledge of the crime, is insufficient to establish guilt of the conspiracy to

commit the crime.

In order to convict a person of conspiracy, the state need not show that such person had direct

communication with all other conspirators. It is not necessary that each conspirator be

acquainted with all others or even know their names. It is sufficient if (he/she) has come to an

understanding with at least one of the others, and has come to such understanding with that

person to further a criminal purpose. Additionally, it is not essential that (he/she) know the

complete plan of the conspiracy in all of its details. It is enough if (he/she) knows that a

conspiracy exists or that (he/she) is creating one and that (he/she) is joining with at least one

person in an agreement to commit a crime. Therefore, in order to convict the defendant on the

charge contained in the information, the first element that the state must prove beyond a

reasonable doubt is that the defendant specifically intended to enter into an agreement, with at

least one other person to engage in conduct constituting <insert object of conspiracy>.

Element 2 - Overt act

The second element is that at least one of the alleged coconspirators did an overt act to further

the purpose of the conspiracy. It does not matter which one of the alleged coconspirators did the

overt act. It need not be the defendant, and it need not be a criminal act. An overt act is any

step, action, or conduct that is taken to achieve or further the objective of the conspiracy. An

overt act, therefore, is one that is committed or caused to be committed by any member of the

conspiracy in an effort to accomplish some objective or purpose of the conspiracy. Remember, a

single overt act is sufficient to prove this element of the conspiracy. The overt act cannot,

however, be held against the other alleged coconspirators if it was not intended to further the

general purposes of the conspiracy, but was secretly intended to further the actor’s own personal

purpose. The overt act must be a subsequent independent act that follows the formation of the

conspiracy.

Element 3 - Criminal intent

The third element is that the defendant had the intent to commit <insert object of conspiracy>.

This means that the defendant must specifically intend that every element of the planned offense

be accomplished. As to this count, those elements are <describe the intent of the offense

including elements that carry no specific intent requirement.>

9 The defendant may not be found

guilty unless the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) specifically intended to

commit <insert object of conspiracy> when (he/she) entered into the agreement.10 <See Intent:

Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant had an

agreement with one or more other persons to commit <insert object of conspiracy>, 2) at least

one of the coconspirators did an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and 3) the defendant

specifically intended to enter into the agreement and intended the conduct constituting the crime

of <insert the object of the conspiracy>.

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

of the crime of conspiracy to commit <insert object of conspiracy>, 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.

1 State v. Henry, 253 Conn. 354, 366-68 (2000); State v. Hooks, 30 Conn. App. 232, 241-42, cert.

denied, 225 Conn. 915 (1993); State v. Hernandez, 28 Conn. App. 126, 134-35, cert. denied, 223

Conn. 920 (1992); State v. Dematteo, 186 Conn. 696, 707 (1982); State v. Ortiz, 169 Conn. 642,

645 (1975).

2 State v. Forde, 52 Conn. App. 159, 168, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 918 (1999); State v. Boykin, 27

Conn. App. 558, 565, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 905 (1992).

3 State v. Bond, 49 Conn. App. 183, 195-96, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 915 (1998); State v.

Hernandez, supra, 28 Conn. App. 135; State v. Channer, 28 Conn. App. 161, 168-69, cert.

denied, 223 Conn. 921 (1992).

4 State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602, 607 (1991); State v. Johns, 184 Conn. 369, 378 (1981).

5 State v. Forde, 52 Conn. App. 159, 168 (1999); State v. Channer, supra, 28 Conn. App. 168.

6 State v. Bond, supra, 49 Conn. App. 195-96; State v. Boykin, supra, 27 Conn. App. 564-65.

7 State v, Goodrum, 39 Conn. App. 526, 540 (1995); State v. Lynch, 21 Conn. App. 386, 392,

cert. denied, 216 Conn. 806 (1990).

8 State v. Smart, 37 Conn. App. 360, 376-79, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914 (1995); State v. Boykin,

supra, 27 Conn. App. 569-72.

9 State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451, 453 (2015) (“[T]o be convicted of conspiracy, a defendant must

specifically intend that every element of the planned offense be accomplished, even an element

that itself carries no specific intent requirement” [emphasis added]).

10 It is not necessary to include in the instruction any reference to the intent of any of the

coconspirators. State v. Sanchez, 84 Conn. App. 583, 592-93 (approving an instruction on intent

similar to the model one), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 929 (2004).