Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 7.5-1

The defendant is charged [in count__] with voyeurism. The statute defining this offense reads in

pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of voyeurism when, <insert appropriate subsection:>

• § 53a-189a (a) (1): with malice, or

• § 53a-189a (a) (2): with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of such person or

any other person,

such person knowingly photographs, films, videotapes or otherwise records the image

of another person without the knowledge and consent of such other person, while

such other person is not in plain view, and under circumstances where such other

person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Recorded images

The first element is that the defendant photographed, filmed, videotaped or otherwise recorded

the image of another person.

Element 2 - Knowingly

The second element is that the defendant did so knowingly. A person acts “knowingly” with

respect to conduct or to a circumstance when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such

nature or that such circumstance exists. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.> In other words,

the defendant must have been aware that (he/she) was photographing, filming, videotaping or

otherwise recording the image of another person.

Element 3 - With malice or intent

The third element is that the defendant acted with <insert as appropriate:>

• malice. To act “with malice” means to act with some improper or unjustifiable or

harmful motive including, but not limited to, the desire to cause pain, injury or distress to

another; or

• the specific intent to arouse or satisfy either (his/her) own sexual desires or the sexual

desires of some other person. Intent relates to the condition of mind of the person who

commits the act, his or her purpose in doing it. <See Specific Intent, Instruction 2.3-1>

Element 4 - Privacy

The fourth element is that the other person did not know and consent to the recording, was not in

plain view, and was in circumstances where (he/she) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The phrase “not in plain view” refers to the plain view of the general public, not the defendant,

and plain view does not include any view achieved by photographing, filming, videotaping or

otherwise recording under or around a person’s clothing.

1 A person has a reasonable expectation

of privacy when (he/she) has shown a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is

one that society considers reasonable.

Conclusion

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

filmed, videotaped or otherwise recorded the image of <insert name of person>, 2) (he/she) did

so knowingly, 3) (he/she) did so with (malice / intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of

(himself/herself) or some other person), and 4) <insert name of person> did not know and

consent to the recording, was not in plain view, and was in circumstances where (he/she) had a

reasonable expectation of privacy.

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

of the crime of voyeurism, 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 See State v. Panek, 328 Conn. 219, 241 (2018) (“[T]he legislature intended ‘not in plain view’

to refer to the plain view of the public generally [as opposed to that of the defendant], meaning

that a person must not be in a position where any member of the public, lawfully situated, could

plainly view the person being recorded.”). General Statutes § 53a-189a (b) explicitly provides

that “‘in plain view’ does not include any view that is achieved by photographing, filming,

videotaping or otherwise recording under or around a person’s clothing.”