Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.2-40

The defendant is charged [in count__] with firearms trafficking. The statute defining this offense

reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of firearms trafficking if such person, knowingly and intentionally,

directly or indirectly, causes one or more firearms that such person owns, is in

possession of or is in control of to come into the possession of or control of another

person whom such person knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from owning

or possessing any firearm under state or federal law.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Owned, possessed or controlled firearms

The first element is that the defendant owned, possessed or controlled firearms. “Firearm”

means any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon,

whether loaded or unloaded, from which a shot may be discharged. You must find that the

firearm was operable at the time of the incident.

[<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.

1]

“Possession” means either having the (substance / object) on one’s person or otherwise having

control over the (substance / object), that is, knowing where it is and being able to access it.

Possession also requires that the defendant knew that (he/she) was in possession of the firearm.

That is, that (he/she) was aware that (he/she) was in possession of it and was aware of its nature.

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that (he/she) was in

possession of the firearm. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

<If some form of constructive possession is alleged, see Possession, Instruction 2.11-1.>

Element 2 - Caused to come into another’s possession or control

The second element is that the defendant caused the firearms to come into the possession of or

control of another person, <identify other person>. This means that the defendant did something

that, either directly or indirectly, resulted in <identify other person> coming into the possession

or control of the firearms.

Element 3 - Person prohibited from owning or possessing firearms

The third element is that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that <identify other

person> was prohibited from purchasing or otherwise receiving a firearm because (he/she) did

not have a valid permit. [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.>]

Element 4 - Intent

The fourth element is that the defendant had the specific intent that <identify other person>

would come into possession or control of the firearms. 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.>

Conclusion

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

possessed, or controlled firearms, 2) caused those firearms to come into the possession or control

of <identify other person>, 3) knew that <identify other person> was prohibited from owning or

possessing any firearm, and 4) specifically intended that <identify other person> would come

into possession or control of the firearms.

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

of firearms trafficking, 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. 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)).

2 Ascertain from counsel what form of possession is alleged. The definition should be narrowly

tailored to the allegations.