Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.2-29

The defendant is charged [in count__] with criminally negligent storage of a firearm. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when (he/she)

improperly stores a firearm1 and another person obtains the firearm and causes the

injury or death of such person or any other person.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Improperly stored firearm

The first element is that the defendant improperly stored a firearm on any premises under the

defendant’s control. A “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]

Improper storage is defined as: (1) failing to keep the firearm in a securely locked box or other

container or in a manner which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) failing to

carry the firearm on (his/her) person or within such close proximity thereto that (he/she) can

readily retrieve and use the firearm as if the firearm was carried on (his/her) person. <Insert

allegations of improper storage.>

To find that the defendant improperly stored a firearm, you must find that the defendant was

criminally negligent.

5 A person acts with “criminal negligence” with respect to a result or to a

circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when (he/she) fails to perceive a

substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The

risk 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. <See Criminal

Negligence, Instruction 2.3-5.>

Element 2 - Obtained by another person

The second element is that, as a result of the improper storage, the firearm was obtained by

another person.

Element 3 - Injury or death

The third element is that the person who obtained the firearm used the firearm to cause injury or

death to (himself/herself) or to another person.

Conclusion

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

stored a firearm, 2) as a result of the improper storage, another person obtained the firearm, and

3) the person who obtained the firearm used the firearm to cause injury or death to

(himself/herself) or to another person.

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

of the crime of the criminally negligent storage of a firearm, 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 statute refers to General Statutes § 29-37i, which is titled “Responsibilities re storage of

firearms.”

2 The definition of “firearm” in General Statutes § 53a-3 (19), which includes both loaded and

unloaded weapons from which a shot may be discharged, was incorporated into § 29-37i by

Public Acts 2019, No. 19-5, § 1, effective October 1, 2019.

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)).

4 General Statutes § 29-37i. “The most appropriate and efficient means to achieve the goal of

restricting access to a loaded firearm depends on facts uniquely within the knowledge of the

individual gun owner. The most obvious variables include the ages of children in the household,

the physical layout of the home, and the availability of locked safes or closets. A high shelf in a

closet may be a secure location when the only child in the household is a toddler, but when older

children are present in the home, it may be necessary to use trigger locks and a locked container.

Therefore, while the individual gun owner may reasonably determine what he or she must do to

‘secure’ a weapon and a jury that is privy to the relevant facts may do so as well, it would be

virtually impossible for the legislature to explicitly define what ‘secure’ means for every

situation. . . . It is appropriate and necessary to leave this determination to the finder of fact.”

(Citations omitted.) State v. Wilchinski, 242 Conn. 211, 228 (1997).

5 State v. Wilchinski, supra, 242 Conn. 232.