Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.2-3

The defendant is charged [in count__] with threatening in the second degree. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when <insert appropriate

subsection:>

• § 53a-62 (a) (1): that person, by physical threat, intentionally places or attempts to place

another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

• § 53a-62 (a) (2): that person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to

terrorize another person.

• § 53a-62 (a) (3): that person threatens to commit any crime of violence in reckless

disregard of the risk of terrorizing another person.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Made a threat

The first element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

• § 53a-62 (a) (1): made a physical threat to another person. A threat is the expression of

an intention to injure another person. A physical threat is a threat accompanied by some

action, such as words accompanied by a threatening gesture. A physical threat may also

occur if the defendant expresses the threat in the person’s presence and has the apparent

ability to carry out (his/her) threat. Mere words are insufficient to constitute a physical

threat; the defendant must also indicate by (his/her) actions an intent or an ability

physically to carry out that threat. The conduct of a person, even without words, may be

sufficient to cause fear in another person.

• § 53a-62 (a) (2) or § 53a-62 (a) (3): threatened to commit a crime of violence. A crime

of violence is one in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of violating, injuring,

damaging, or abusing another person. The state must prove that the defendant behaved in

a manner that indicated (his/her) intent to commit such a crime.

A threat can only be punishable when it is a true threat. <See True Threats, Instruction 2.2-8.>

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

• § 53a-62 (a) (1): intended by (his/her) conduct to put that person in fear of imminent

serious physical injury. 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.> “Serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of

death, or that causes “serious disfigurement,” serious impairment of health or serious loss

or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. “Imminent” means impending or

likely to occur immediately. It is not the danger or risk of injury, but the person’s

perception that is essential to this crime. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant intended to place the other person in fear of imminent and serious

physical injury.

• § 53a-62 (a) (2): intended to terrorize another person. To terrorize means to cause

intense fear or apprehension.1 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.>

• § 53a-62 (a) (3): acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror to another

person. A person acts “recklessly” with respect to a result or circumstances when

(he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that

such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See Recklessness, Instruction

2.3-4.>

Conclusion

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

(another person / to commit any crime of violence), and 2) the defendant (intended to put <insert

name of person> in fear of imminent serious physical injury / intended to terrorize <insert name

of person> / acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror to <insert name of person>).

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

of the crime of threatening in the second 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.

1 State v. Dyson, 238 Conn. 784, 798-99 (1996).