Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.12-2

Note: This instruction is for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2016. Public Acts

Nos. 13-166, § 2, and 16-71, § 12, substantially revised the definition of the offense. For

crimes committed before October 1, 2013, see Instruction 6.12-2 (archived I). For crimes

committed before October 1, 2016, but on or after October 1, 2013, see Instruction 6.12-2

(archived II).

The defendant is charged [in count__] with trafficking in persons. The statute defining this

offense reads in pertinent part:

a person is guilty of trafficking in persons when such person knowingly compels or

induces another person to (engage in conduct involving sexual contact with one or

more third persons / provide labor or services that such person has a legal right to

refrain from providing), by means of (the use of force against such other person or a

third person, or by the threat of use of force against such other person or a third

person / fraud / coercion).

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Compelled or induced

The first element is that the defendant knowingly compelled or induced another person to

• engage in conduct involving sexual contact with one or more third persons.

• provide labor or services that the person has a legal right to refrain from providing.

“Compel” means to force or constrain to do something. “Induce” means to move to action by

persuasion or by influence. <Insert specific allegations.>

“Sexual contact” means any contact with the intimate parts of another person.

The defendant must have knowingly compelled or induced the other person <insert specific

allegations>. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described

by a statute defining an offense when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or

that such circumstance exists. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

Element 2 - By means of

The second element is that the defendant did this by

• (the use of force / the threat of use of force) against the person or a third person.

• fraud. The meaning of “fraud,” both in is legal usage and its common usage, is the same:

a deliberately planned purpose and intent to cheat or deceive or unlawfully deprive

someone of some advantage, benefit or property.

• coercion. <See Coercion, Instruction 6.12-1.>

<Insert specific allegations.>

[Affirmative Defense:The statute defining this offense also defines an affirmative defense,

which the defendant has raised. <See Affirmative Defense, Instruction 2.9-1.>

The defendant claims that (he/she) was under eighteen years of age and (his/her) participation in

the offense was a result of having been a victim of conduct of another person that constitutes

trafficking in persons as I have described that offense to you. <Instruct on applicable

subdivision of § 53a-192a (a) and supporting evidence.>]

Conclusion

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

compelled or induced <insert name of complainant> to (engage in conduct that involves sexual

contact with one or more third persons / provide labor or services), and 2) did so by ((the use of

force / the threat of the use of force) against <insert name of complainant or third person>) /

fraud / coercion).

[<If 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 trafficking in persons, 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 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 trafficking in persons, you shall then find the defendant not guilty and

not consider the defendant’s 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 (his/her) defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you

shall find the defendant not guilty. If you unanimously find that the defendant has not proved

(his/her) affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you shall find the

defendant guilty.]