Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 4.3-2

Policeman, Motor Vehicle Inspector, or Firefighter --

§ 53a-167b

The defendant is charged [in count __] with failure to assist a (peace officer / special policeman

/ motor vehicle inspector / firefighter). The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part

as follows:

a person is guilty of failure to assist a (peace officer / special policeman / motor

vehicle inspector / firefighter) when, commanded by a (peace officer / special

policeman / inspector / firefighter) authorized to command assistance, such person

refuses to assist such (peace officer / special policeman / inspector / firefighter) in the

execution of (his/her) duties.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Assistance commanded by officer

The first element is that the defendant was commanded to assist a <insert type of officer>.

1 This

element requires that you find that <insert name of officer making command> was a <insert type

of officer> and that (he/she) commanded rather than merely requested assistance.

Element 2 - Officer authorized to command assistance

The second element is that the <insert name and/or title of officer> was authorized to command

such assistance in the performance of (his/her) duties.

Element 3 - Assistance was necessary and reasonable

The third element is that such assistance was both demonstrably necessary and reasonable under

all the circumstances. In evaluating necessity and reasonableness, the following factors should

be considered: the urgency of the situation giving rise to a command for assistance; the

availability of other trained law enforcement officers, rather than untrained civilians, to come to

an officer’s aid; the nature of the assistance sought; the appropriateness of commandeering the

assistance of these individuals; the provocativeness of the situation in which aid is sought; the

presence or threat of the use of weapons; and the risk of injury or death to the officer, to the

individual being ordered to assist, and to any other parties present; and the reasonableness of the

officer’s actions in the underlying situation for which (he/she) sought assistance.

Element 4 - Refused to assist

The fourth element is that the defendant refused to assist the <insert name and/or title of officer>

in the execution of (his/her) duties as commanded.

Conclusion

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

commanded to assist <insert type of officer>, 2) the <insert type of officer> was authorized to

command such assistance, 3) the assistance was necessary and reasonable under all the

circumstances, and 4) the defendant refused to assist the <insert type of officer>.

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

of the crime of failure to assist a (peace officer / special policeman / motor vehicle inspector /

firefighter), 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 See definitions of peace officer and firefighter in the Glossary. A “special policeman” is

appointed by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, pursuant to

General Statutes § 29-18b, to act in the special investigation section of the Department of

Revenue Services and has all the powers of a state policeman. A “motor vehicle inspector” is

appointed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to General Statutes § 14-8, and has

“the same authority to make arrests or issue citations for violation of any statute or regulation

relating to motor vehicles and to enforce said statues and regulations as policemen or state

policemen in their respective jurisdictions.” Motor vehicle inspectors were added to this offense

by Public Acts 2008, No. 08-150, § 53, effective October 1, 2008.

2 State v. Floyd, 217 Conn. 73, 92-95 (1991) (adding the common-law element of necessity and

reasonableness to save the statute from a facial constitutional challenge).