Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 4.5-3

The defendant is charged [in count __] with tampering with a witness. The statute defining

this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of tampering with a witness if, believing that an official proceeding

is pending or about to be instituted, (he/she) induces or attempts to induce a witness

to (testify falsely / withhold testimony / elude legal process summoning (him/her) to

testify / absent (himself/herself) from any official proceeding).

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Witness in an official proceeding

The first element is that the defendant believed that an official proceeding was pending or about

to be instituted

1 and that <insert name of witness> was likely to be a witness. An “official

proceeding” is any proceeding held or that may be held, before any legislative, judicial,

administrative or other agency or official authorized to take evidence under oath, including any

referee, hearing examiner, commissioner or notary or other person taking evidence in connection

with any proceeding. A “witness” is any person summoned or who may be summoned to give

testimony in an official proceeding. In this case, the state alleges that <insert name of witness>

was a witness who was to appear before <insert type of proceeding>.

Element 2 - Influence

The second element is that the defendant induced or attempted to induce a witness to (testify

falsely / to withhold testimony / to elude legal process summoning the witness to testify / to

absent (himself/herself) from an official proceeding).

It is immaterial whether the defendant was successful in producing the result (he/she) intended.

It is sufficient if the defendant specifically intended by (his/her) conduct to cause a particular

witness to testify falsely or to refrain from testifying at all. A person acts “intentionally” with

respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent:

Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

Conclusion

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

<insert name of witness> was to be a witness before <insert type of proceeding>, and 2) the

defendant induced or attempted to induce <insert name of witness> to <insert specific

allegations>.

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

of the crime of tampering with a witness, 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 The requirement that the defendant believe that an official proceeding is “about to be

instituted” is satisfied “if a defendant, knowing he has been implicated as a participant in a

crime, threatens a likely witness to that crime, to withhold evidence from the police.” State v.

Pommer, 110 Conn. App. 608, 618, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 951 (2008). “[I]t does not matter

whether the police are at the investigation stage, the official proceedings stage, or any other

stage; as long as the defendant acts with the intent to prevent a witness from testifying at an

official proceeding.” State v. Ortiz, 312 Conn. 551, 571 (2014) (defendant tried to prevent

witness from giving statement to police after defendant confessed to the reporting party he had

killed someone, the defendant knew the reporting party was speaking with the police, and the

defendant believed the police had warrants for his arrest); see also State v. Lamantia, 336 Conn.

747, 757 (2020) (holding that “[a]n official proceeding that was pending or was about to be

instituted includes not only those proceedings that have been initiated, but also those that are

probable or ‘readily apt to come into existence or [to] be contemplated’ by a defendant.”).