Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 4.6-4

The defendant is charged [in count __] with inciting to riot at a correctional institution. The

statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of inciting to riot at a correctional institution when (he/she) (incites

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

of inmates of a correctional institution, the purpose of which is to foment (unrest /

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

regulations of the institution).

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Meeting of inmates

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

aided / abetted / took part in) a meeting of inmates at <insert name of facility>. The words

“incites, instigates, organizes, connives at, causes, aids, abets, or takes part” have their ordinary

meaning. There is no requirement that any particular number of persons take part in such

meeting.

Element 2 - Incitement

The second element is that the purpose of such meeting was to foment (unrest / disorder /

disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to the rules and regulations of the institution).

The words “disorder, disturbance, strike, riot, and organized disobedience to the rules and

regulations” have their ordinary meaning. It does not matter whether the defendant intended to

commit a crime when (he/she) so acted. Such act, however, must be done wilfully, that is, not

accidentally or inadvertently.

The statute does not require that the defendant specifically intended to cause the (disturbance /

unrest / disorder / strike / riot / organized disobedience to the rules and regulations of the

institution).

2 The state must prove, however, that the defendant knew that the purpose of the

meeting was to foment (unrest / disorder / disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to

the rules and regulations of the institution). <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

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 1) the defendant (incited /

instigated / organized / connived at / caused / aided / abetted / took part in) a meeting, 2) the

purpose of the meeting was to <insert specific allegations>, and 3) the meeting took place at a

correctional institution.

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

of the crime of inciting riot 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. 249-50 (inciting to riot at a correctional institution is a

general intent crime). “From a policy standpoint, the court [in State v. Pascucci, 164 Conn. 69,

73 (1972),] reasoned that ‘[t]he dangers which the statute seeks to obviate could arise from acts

which, although in no way intended to produce danger, readily could give rise to disorder,

disturbance, strike or riot.’” Id.