Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.2-5

to Person Prohibited from Purchasing or Possessing --

§ 29-37j

A. If charged with a violation of § 29-37j (a):

The defendant is charged [in count__] with purchasing a firearm with intent to provide it to a

person prohibited from possessing firearms. The statute defining this offenses imposes

punishment on any person who purchases a firearm pursuant to legal procedures for purchasing

firearms with the intent to transfer such firearm to any other person who the transferor knows or

has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing or otherwise receiving such a firearm.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Lawfully purchased a firearm

The first element is that the defendant lawfully purchased a firearm. This means that (he/she)

had a permit

1 or legal right to do so.

“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.

3]

Element 2 - Intent to transfer to person

The second element is that the defendant did so with the specific intent to transfer the firearm to

another person. 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 - Knowledge that other person was prohibited from purchasing or possessing

firearm

The third element is that the defendant knew or had reason to believe that the intended recipient

of the firearm 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.>

Conclusion

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

purchased a firearm, 2) (he/she) specifically intended to transfer that firearm to another person,

and 3) (he/she) knew or had reason to believe that the intended recipient of the firearm was

prohibited from purchasing or otherwise receiving a firearm.

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

of this offense, 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.

B. If charged with a violation of § 29-37j (b)

The defendant is charged [in count__] with (soliciting / employing / assisting) another person to

purchase a firearm and provide that firearm to a person not allowed to possess firearms. The

statute defining this offenses imposes punishment on any person prohibited from purchasing or

otherwise receiving or possessing a firearm who (solicits / employs / assists) any person to

purchase a firearm with the intent to provide it to a person prohibited from possessing firearms.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm

The first element is that the defendant was prohibited from purchasing or otherwise receiving or

possessing a firearm by virtue of not having a permit.

Element 2 - Had another person purchase firearm

The second element is that the defendant (solicited / employed / assisted) another person to

lawfully purchase a firearm.

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. 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.

5]

Element 3 - Intent to transfer to person

The third element is that the defendant specifically intended that the firearm would be transferred

to a person who did not have a permit to possess a firearm. 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 1) the defendant was prohibited

from purchasing or otherwise receiving or possessing a firearm by virtue of not having a permit,

2) (he/she) (solicited / employed / assisted) <insert name of other person> to lawfully purchase a

firearm, and 3) (he/she) intended to transfer that firearm to <insert name of intended recipient>

who was prohibited from possessing a firearm by virtue of not having a lawful permit.

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

of this offense, 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 Pursuant to General Statutes § 29-33 or § 29-37a.

2 This statute specifically incorporates the definition of “firearm” as found in General Statutes §

53a-3 (19), which requires that the firearm be operable.

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 See footnote 2.

5 See footnote 3.