Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 4.6-3

The defendant is charged [in count __] with rioting at a correctional institution. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of rioting at a correctional institution when (he/she) (incites /

instigates / organizes / connives at / causes / aids / abets / assists / takes part in) any

(disorder / disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to the rules and

regulations of such institution).

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Rioting

The first element is that the defendant (incited / instigated / organized / connived at / caused /

aided / abetted / took part in) any (disorder / disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to

the rules and regulations of the institution) at <insert name of facility>.

The words “incites, instigates, organizes, connives at, causes, aids, abets, or takes part” have

their ordinary meaning. The words “disorder, disturbance, strike, riot, and organized

disobedience to the rules and regulations” also have their ordinary meaning. There is no

requirement that any particular number of persons take part in any incident.

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the defendant acted wilfully, that is, not accidentally or inadvertently.

<Review the evidence as to the defendant’s participation in the disturbance.>

Element 3 - At a correctional institution

The third element is that <insert name of facility> is a correctional institution. A “correctional

institution” is any correctional facility administered by the commissioner of correction.

Conclusion

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

specific allegations> at <insert name of facility>, 2) the defendant acted wilfully, and 3) <insert

name of facility> is a correctional institution.

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

of the crime of rioting at a correctional institution, 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. Nixon, 32 Conn. App. 224, 246 (1993), aff’d on other grounds, 231 Conn. 545 (1995).

2 See State v. Nixon, supra, 32 Conn. App. 250 (rioting at a correctional institute is a general

intent crime). See also State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 743-44 (1993) (that the defendant had

slashed the neck of a correction officer would not, by itself, be enough to satisfy this element;

there must be some evidence that the defendant had actively participated in the riot, such as

exhorting other inmates to take place in the disturbance).