Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 8.9-1

The defendant is charged [in count__] with interfering with an emergency call. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of interfering with an emergency call when such person, with the

intent of preventing another person from making or completing (a 911 telephone call /

telephone call or radio communication to any law enforcement agency) to (request

police protection / report the commission of a crime), (physically / verbally) prevents

or hinders such other person from making or completing such (telephone call / radio

communication).

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Prevented call

The first element is that the defendant (physically / verbally) prevented or hindered another

person from making or completing a (911 telephone call / telephone call or radio communication

to any law enforcement agency).

Element 2 - Purpose of call

The second element is that the purpose of such call was to (request police protection / report the

commission of a crime).

Element 3 - Intent

The third element is that the defendant acted with the specific intent to prevent the other person

from making or completing such call. 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 (physically /

verbally) prevented or hindered another person from making or completing a (911 telephone call

/ telephone call or radio communication to any law enforcement agency), 2) the call was to

(request police protection / report the commission of a crime), and 3) (he/she) did so with the

specific intent to prevent the other person from making or completing such call.

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

of interfering with an emergency call, 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. Solomon, 103 Conn. App. 530, 538 (2007).