Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.2-28

The defendant is charged [in count__] with criminal use of (a firearm / an electronic defense

weapon). The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminal use of (a firearm / an electronic defense weapon) when

(he/she) commits any class A, B or C or unclassified felony and in the commission of

such felony (he/she) uses or threatens the use of a pistol, revolver, machine gun,

shotgun, rifle or other firearm or electronic defense weapon.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Committed a felony

The first element is that the defendant committed a Class A, B or C or unclassified felony. To

prove this element, the state must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant

committed the crime of <insert felony charged> as charged in count __. Proof of this element

will depend on your deliberations pertaining to that count. If you find the defendant guilty of

<insert underlying crime> in count __, then this element will be proved.

Element 2 - With firearm or electronic defense weapon

The second element is that in the commission of such felony the defendant used or threatened the

use of (a firearm / an electronic defense weapon). The words “use” and “threaten” have their

ordinary meaning. <Insert appropriate definition:>

• “Firearm” is any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other

weapon, whether loaded or unloaded, from which a shot may be discharged.

[<Include if appropriate:> For an instrument to meet the statutory definition of “other

weapon,” the state must have proven that the instrument is both designed for violence and

capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm.3]

• “Electronic defense weapon” is a weapon which by electronic impulse or current is

capable of immobilizing a person temporarily, including a stun gun or other conductive

energy device.

Conclusion

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

Class A, B or C or unclassified felony, and 2) in the commission of such felony the defendant

used or threatened the use of <insert type of weapon>.

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

of the crime of the criminal use of (a firearm / electronic defense weapon), 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 “No person shall be convicted of criminal use of a firearm or electronic defense weapon and the

underlying felony upon the same transaction but such person may be charged and prosecuted for

both such offenses upon the same information.” General Statutes § 53a-216 (a).

2 The definition of “firearm” as found in General Statutes § 53a-3 (19), which applies to this

offense, requires that the firearm be operable. See definitions for machine gun, rifle, shotgun,

and pistol or revolver in the glossary.

3 See State v. Lopez, 341 Conn. 793, 807 (2022) (state failed to prove that airsoft pellet gun was

“weapon” and, therefore, “firearm” within the meaning of General Statutes § 53a-3 (19) because

it produced no evidence to show that it was designed for violence or that it was capable of

causing death or serious bodily harm); see also State v. Coauette, 601 N.W.2d 443, 446-47

(Minn. App. 1999) (paintball gun not a firearm because it was “designed for use in a game and . .

. its projectiles are [liquid paint] capsules designed to burst on impact, rather than to pierce”),

review denied, Minnesota Supreme Court, Docket No. C4-98-2286 (Minn. December 14, 1999);

cf. State v. Grant, 294 Conn. 151, 156 (2009) (evidence that BB gun “was capable of discharging

shot that could cause serious bodily injury” established that it was a “weapon” and, hence,

“firearm” within meaning of § 53a-3 (19)); State v. Hardy, 278 Conn. 113, 117-18 (2006)

(operating manual stating that BB gun was “not a toy” and could “cause serious injury or death”

sufficient to establish that it was a “deadly weapon” within meaning of General Statutes § 53a-3

(6)).