Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 7.1-12

The defendant is charged [in count__] with sexual assault in the fourth degree. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when such person subjects

another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent.

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

doubt the following elements:

Element 1 - Sexual contact

The first element is that the defendant subjected the complainant to sexual contact. “Sexual

contact” means any contact by the defendant with the intimate parts of the complainant or

contact of the intimate parts of the defendant with the complainant for the purpose of the

defendant’s sexual gratification or for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the complainant.

“Intimate parts” means the genital area or any substance emitted therefrom, groin, anus or any

substance emitted therefrom, inner thighs, buttocks or breasts. To constitute sexual contact there

must be an actual touching. There need not be, however, direct contact with the unclothed body

of the other person or the defendant. It is enough if the touching of the genital area, groin, anus,

inner thighs, buttocks or breast was through the other person’s clothing or the defendant’s

clothing.

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the defendant had the specific intent to (obtain sexual gratification /

degrade or humiliate the complainant).

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.>

Element 3 - Lack of consent

The third element is that, at the time of the offense, the complainant did not consent to the sexual

contact. Such consent must have been actual and not simply acquiescence brought about by

force, by fear, or by shock. It 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. The defendant may not be convicted of

sexual assault if the words or conduct of the complainant under all the circumstances would

justify a reasonable belief that (he/she) had consented. Whether the complainant should be

found to have consented depends upon how (his/her) behavior would have been viewed by a

reasonable person under the surrounding circumstances. The crux of the inquiry on the issue of

consent is not the subjective state of mind of the complainant, but rather,(his/ her) manifestations

of consent or lack of consent by words or conduct as reasonably construed by a reasonable

person in the same circumstances as the defendant.

The state claims that the complainant did not consent, and that the defendant intentionally

disregarded the complainant’s lack of consent to sexual contact. This imposes a burden upon the

state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that under the existing circumstances, the defendant

failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the complainant had not consented.

The failure to perceive a lack of consent, if proven, must be of such nature and degree that the

failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable

person would observe in the situation as it then existed. A gross deviation is a great or

substantial deviation, not just a slight or moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial

difference between, on the one hand, the defendant’s conduct in failing to perceive a substantial

and unjustifiable risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would have done under

the circumstances. Whether the risk is substantial and unjustifiable is a question of fact for you

to determine under the circumstances.

Conclusion

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

complainant to sexual contact, 2) (he/she) specifically intended to (obtain sexual gratification /

degrade or humiliate the complainant), and 3) the complainant did not consent to the sexual

contact.

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

of the crime of sexual assault in the fourth 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 The intent element of this offense is derived from the definition of “sexual contact” in General

Statutes § 53a-65 (3). See State v. Faria, 254 Conn. 613, 636 n.24 (2000).