Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.1-15

Note: The degree of the larceny is determined by the value of the property stolen. See §

53a-122 (first degree); § 53a-123 (second degree); § 53a-124 (third degree); § 53a-125

(fourth degree); § 53a-125a (fifth degree); § 53a-125b (sixth degree). The dollar amounts

for the degrees of larceny were increased as of October 1, 2009. See the table in

Introduction to Larceny for the values in effect prior to that date.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with larceny by receiving stolen property in the (first /

second / third / fourth / fifth / sixth) degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent

part as follows:

a person is guilty of larceny by receiving stolen property if (he/she) (receives / retains

/ disposes of) stolen property knowing that it has probably been stolen or believing

that it has probably been stolen.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Stolen property

The first element is that the defendant (received / retained / disposed of) stolen property.

“Stolen property” is property that has been wrongfully taken away from the person who owns or

possesses it with the intent of depriving that person of it. It does not matter who stole the

property or through how many hands it passed. All you need to determine is that it was stolen

property. <Insert appropriate definition(s):>

• To “receive” means to acquire possession, control or title, or to lend on the security of the

property. Physical possession is not essential. It is sufficient if the defendant has control

over the property, such as keeping it in (his/her) house or car. It is also sufficient if the

defendant has received the property as security on a loan, as in the case of a pawnbroker

who lends money in such a situation.

• To “retain” means to keep or hold property. If a person initially received stolen property

innocently, (he/she) would be guilty if (he/she) learned later that the property had been

stolen and continued to retain it.

• To “dispose of” means to transfer or relinquish possession or control over the property or

to effect a virtually permanent or final change in its nature so as to make restoration to

the owner impracticable. A sale or pledge of the goods would be a disposition; so would

a use of the goods that consumed the greater portion of their economic value.

[<If appropriate:> A person who accepts or receives the use or benefit of a public utility

commodity that customarily passes through a meter, knowing such commodity (has been

diverted from the meter / has not been correctly registered by the meter / has not been registered

at all by a meter), is guilty of larceny by receiving stolen property.]

Element 2 - Knowledge

The second element is that the defendant knew or believed that the property had probably been

stolen. (He/She) need not have known with certainty that it was stolen property. If (he/she)

knew or believed that more probably than not it had been stolen, that would be sufficient.2

It would not be enough for you to conclude that the defendant exercised poor judgment when

(he/she) acquired the property or that (he/she) was careless and should have suspected that the

property was stolen. There must have been an actual belief in the defendant’s mind that the

property was, or probably was, stolen.

This belief need not have been present at the time the defendant first acquired the goods. If

(he/she) subsequently discovered they had been stolen, (his/her) continued retention of them or

(his/her) ultimate disposition of them while having such knowledge would constitute the crime.

Element 3 - Value

The third element is that the property had a value that <insert as appropriate:>

First degree: exceeded $20,000.

Second degree: exceeded $10,000.

Third degree: exceeded $2,000.

Fourth degree: exceeded $1,000.

Fifth degree: exceeded $500.

Sixth degree: did not exceed $500.

<See Larceny, Instruction 9.1-1, for a full explanation of this element.>

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant (received /

retained / disposed of) stolen property, 2) (he/she) knew or believed that the property had

probably been stolen, and 3) the value of the stolen property was <insert value according to

degree charged>.

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

of the crime of larceny by receiving stolen property, 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 concludes with “unless the property is received, retained, disposed of with purpose

to restore it to the owner.” This portion of the statute should not be included unless the defense

has introduced evidence that he or she received the property with the purpose of restoring it to its

owner. It is then the state’s burden to disprove it. “Whether the defendant received, retained or

disposed of the property with the purpose of restoring it to the owner is peculiarly within his

personal knowledge. We conclude that [this part] of the statute is not an essential element of

[larceny by receiving stolen property.]” State v. Foster, 45 Conn. App. 369, 378, cert. denied,

243 Conn. 904 (1997).

2 See generally State v. Nunes, 58 Conn. App. 296, 300-302, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 944 (2000)