Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.5-6

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

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of unlawful restraint in the second degree when (he/she) restrains

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 - Intent to restrain

The first element is that the defendant specifically intended to restrain <insert name of person>.

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.>

Element 2 - Restrained another person

The second element is that the defendant restrained <insert name of person> by moving

(him/her) from one place to another, or by confining (him/her) in some place in such a manner as

to interfere substantially with (his/her) liberty. There is no requirement that the movement be of

any specific distance or that the confinement last any specific period of time. There need not be

any movement at all -- the person could be confined by preventing (him/her) from leaving a

place where (he/she) was.

Element 3 - Without consent

The third element is that <insert name of person> did not consent to the restraint. <Insert as

appropriate:>

• <If person is an adult:> Consent must have been actual and not simply acquiescence

brought about by force, fear, shock, or deception. The act must have been truly

voluntary. Consent may be express or you may find that it is implied from the

circumstances that you find existed. Whether there was consent is a question of fact for

you to determine. The defendant has no burden to prove consent. The state must prove

the lack of consent.

• <If person is less than sixteen or an incompetent person:> Without consent in this case

means by any means whatever,

2 including acquiescence of the person, if (he/she) is (a

child less than sixteen years old / an incompetent person) and (the parent or guardian /

person or institution having lawful control or custody of (him/her)) has not acquiesced in

the movement or confinement.

Conclusion

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

intended to restrain <insert name of restrained person>, 2) restrained <insert name of restrained

person> by <insert specific allegations>, and 3) did so without (his/her) consent.

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

of the crime of unlawful restraint 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 Unlawful restraint is a specific intent crime. State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 570 (2008).

2 The “any means whatever” language was intended “to protect young children and incompetent

persons from being kidnapped when the victim agrees to go with the kidnapper because of

promises of favors or gifts. A competent adult’s actual consent to the restraint would negate lack

of consent if not induced by deception, force, fear or shock; in other words, with no compulsion

or deception. . . . The ‘any means whatever’ language should not be given in an instruction when

. . . the victim is a competent adult.” State v. Benjamin, 86 Conn. App. 344, 355 (2004).