Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.6-5

The defendant is charged [in count__] with criminal advocacy. The statute defining this offense

reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of criminal advocacy when <insert appropriate subsection:>

• § 53a-179 (a) (1): (he/she) advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government

of this state or any subdivision thereof by imminent dangerous action.

• § 53a-179 (a) (2): with knowledge of its contents, (he/she) (publishes / sells / distributes)

any document which advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this

state or any subdivision thereof by imminent dangerous action.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Advocated overthrow of government

The first element is that the defendant advocated the overthrow of the existing form of

government of this state or any subdivision of the state.

[<Insert if defendant is charged under § 53a-179 (a) (2):> The defendant must have done so by

(publishing / selling / distributing) one or more documents and (he/she) must have had

knowledge of the contents. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>]

Element 2 - Imminent dangerous action

The second element is that (his/her) conduct included an incitement to imminent dangerous

action. “Imminent” means impending or likely to occur immediately. An “imminent

dangerous action” is that type of act or action that is full of danger or is threatening, menacing or

perilous.

Conclusion

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

overthrow of the existing form of government of this state or any subdivision of the state [by

(publishing / selling / distributing) one or more documents], and 2) (his/her) advocacy included

an incitement to imminent dangerous action.

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

of criminal advocacy, 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.