Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.7-6

Note: This instruction is for crimes committed on or after October 1, 2021. Public Act No.

21-56, § 5, substantially revised the definition of the offense. For crimes committed before

October 1, 2021, see Instruction 6.7-6 (archived).

The defendant is charged [in count___] with harassment in the second degree. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when with intent to harass,

terrorize or alarm another person, and for no legitimate purpose, (he/she) makes a

telephone call or engages in any other form of communication, whether or not a

conversation ensues, in a manner likely to cause terror, intimidation, or alarm.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Intent

The first element is that the defendant, for no legitimate purpose, intended to harass, terrorize or

alarm <identify complainant>. 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>

“Harass” means to trouble, worry or torment. “Terrorize” means to cause intense fear or

apprehension.

1 “Alarm” means to make suddenly afraid, anxious, or frightened. “Legitimate”

means in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.

Element 2 - Telephone call/Communication

The second element is that the defendant (made a telephone call / engaged in any form of

communication) in a manner likely to cause terror, intimidation or alarm to <identify

complainant>. It does not matter whether the defendant had a conversation with <identify

complainant>. It only matters that (he/she) (made the telephone call / engaged in any form of

communication) in a manner that was likely to cause terror, intimidation or alarm. <Describe

specific allegations.>

[<If the allegations rely on the content of the communication:>

2 The second element is that the

defendant (made a telephone call / engaged in any form of communication) during which

(he/she) made a threat to commit an unlawful act of violence. A threat can only be punishable

when it is a true threat. <See True Threats, Instruction 2.2-8.>]

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) with intent to harass,

terrorize or alarm <identify complainant> and for no legitimate purpose 2) the defendant (made a

telephone call to / engaged in any other form of communication with) <identify complainant> (in

a manner likely to cause terror, intimidation or alarm / during which (he/she) made a threat to

commit an unlawful act of violence).

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

of the crime of harassment 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).

2 If the allegations rely on the content of the communication, the content must qualify as a true

threat. State v. Moulton, 310 Conn. 337, 360 (2014).