Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.1-6

Pregnant or Intellectually Disabled Person -- § 53a-

59a, § 53a-60b, § 53a-60c, and § 53a-61a

Note: These offenses are based on underlying assault crimes against a certain class of

victim. The degree of the offense depends on the degree of the underlying crime.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with assault of (a/an) (elderly / blind / disabled / pregnant

/ intellectually disabled

1) person [with a firearm] in the (first / second / third) degree. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of assault of (a/an) (elderly / blind / disabled / pregnant /

intellectually disabled) [with a firearm] in the (first / second / third) degree when such

person commits assault [with a firearm] in the (first / second / third) degree and the

person assaulted <insert as appropriate:>

• is at least sixty years of age.

• is blind.

• is physically disabled.

• is pregnant.

• is intellectually disabled, and the actor is not a person with intellectual disability.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt the following elements:

Element 1 - Committed assault

The first element is that the defendant committed assault [with a firearm] in the (first / second /

third) degree. <Insert elements from instruction for the underlying crime:>

§ 53a-59 (a) (2): Assault in the First Degree (Maiming), Instruction 6.1-2.

§ 53a-59 (a) (3): Assault in the First Degree (Reckless Indifference), Instruction 6.1-3.

§ 53a-59 (a) (5): Assault in the First Degree (Discharge of a Firearm), Instruction 6.1-5.

§ 53a-60a: Assault in the Second Degree with a Firearm, Instruction 6.1-16.

§ 53a-61 (a) (1): Assault in the Third Degree (Physical Injury), Instruction 6.1-18.

§ 53a-61 (a) (2): Assault in the Third Degree (Reckless), Instruction 6.1-19.

§ 53a-61 (a) (3): Assault in the Third Degree (Deadly Weapon), Instruction 6.1-20.

Element 2 - Status of complainant

The second element is that the person assaulted was, at the time, <insert as appropriate:>

• At least sixty years of age. The defendant did not have to know that the person was over

sixty years of age.

• Blind. For purposes of this offense, a person is “blind” if (his/her) central visual acuity

does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with correcting lenses, or if (his/her) visual

acuity is greater than 20/200 but is accompanied by a limitation in the fields of vision

such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than twenty

degrees.2 <Insert any medical evidence.> In addition, the defendant did not have to know

that the person was blind.

• Physically disabled. For purposes of this offense, a person is “physically disabled” if

(he/she) has any chronic physical handicap, infirmity or impairment, whether congenital

or resulting from bodily injury, organic process or changes or from illness, including, but

not limited to, epilepsy, deafness or hearing impairment or reliance on a wheelchair or

other remedial appliance or device. Thus, it does not matter whether the person was born

with the chronic physical handicap, infirmity or impairment, or if it resulted from bodily

injury, organic processes or changes or illness.

3 “Physically disabled” requires having a

physical condition that (1) diminishes the ability of the person, or a part or organ of the

person, to function properly, thereby limiting the person’s ability to perform life’s

activities, and (2) diminishes the person’s ability to defend (himself/herself) from assault

or renders (him/her) particularly vulnerable to injury. In making the determination as to

whether the person had a diminished ability to defend (himself/herself) or was

particularly vulnerable to injury, you must consider the condition of the person at the

time of the assault.

4 In addition, the defendant did not have to know that the person was

physically disabled.

• Pregnant.

• Intellectually disabled, and the person committing the assault was not a person with

intellectual disability. For purposes of this offense, “intellectual disability” means a

significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with

deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period. “General

intellectual functioning” means the results obtained by assessment with one or more of

the individually administered general intelligence tests developed for that purpose and

standardized on a significantly adequate population and administered by persons formally

trained in test administration. “Significantly subaverage” means an intelligence quotient

more than two standard deviations below the mean test. “Adaptive behavior” means the

effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal

independence and social responsibility expected for the individual’s age and cultural

group. “Developmental period” means the period of time between birth and the

eighteenth birthday.

5 <Insert any evidence of general intellectual functioning and

adaptive behavior.>

[Affirmative defense

<Include if raised by the defendant:>

The defendant has raised the affirmative defense that (he/she), at the time of the incident, did not

know that <insert name of complainant> was (pregnant / intellectually disabled).

<See Affirmative Defense, Instruction 2.9-1.>]

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that <insert the concluding

summary from the instruction for the underlying crime>, and that at the time of the assault,

<insert name of complainant> was (at least sixty years of age / blind / physically disabled /

pregnant / intellectually disabled).

<Insert one of the following endings:>

If the defendant has not raised the affirmative defense

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

of the crime of assault of (a/an) (elderly / blind / physically disabled / pregnant / intellectually

disabled) [with a firearm] in the (first / second / third) degree, 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.

If the defendant has raised the affirmative defense

If you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the

elements of the crime of assault of (a pregnant / an intellectually disabled) person [with a

firearm] in the (first / second / third) degree, you shall then find the defendant not guilty and not

consider (his/her) affirmative defense.

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

elements, then you shall consider the defendant’s affirmative defense. If you unanimously find

that the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that (he/she) did not know that

<insert name of complainant> was (pregnant / intellectually disabled), then you shall find the

defendant not guilty. If you unanimously find that the defendant has not proved (his/her) defense

by a preponderance of the evidence, then you shall find the defendant guilty.

1 Public Acts 2011, No. 11-129, § 1, replaced the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual

disability,” effective October 1, 2011.

2 General Statutes § 1-1f (a).

3 General Statutes § 1-1f (b).

4 See State v. Jodi D., 340 Conn. 463, 487-89 (2021) (concluding that the statutory definition of

“physically disabled”; see General Statutes § 1-1f (b); was overly broad and, therefore, applying

interpretive gloss on which jury must be instructed).

5 General Statutes § 1-1g.