Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.1-16

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 shoplifting 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 shoplifting who intentionally takes possession of any goods,

wares or merchandise offered or exposed for sale by any store or other mercantile

establishment with the intention of converting the same to (his/her) own use, without

paying the purchase price thereof.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Possession

The first element is that the defendant took possession of the property of another. If (he/she) had

them in (his/her) hands or on (his/her) person, that would be taking possession of them. It would

also be taking possession of them if (he/she) placed them in some place or upon some other

person where they would be subject to (his/her) control.

Element 2 - Goods, wares or merchandise

The second element is that the property was either goods, wares or merchandise offered or

exposed for sale by a store or other mercantile establishment. The words “goods,” “wares” and

“merchandise” have their ordinary meanings and encompass all things that are bought and sold

in the marketplace. Such goods, wares or merchandise must be offered or exposed for sale by a

store or mercantile establishment.

Element 3 - Intent

The third element is that the defendant specifically intended to convert them to (his/her) own use

without paying the purchase price. 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.>

“Converting to (his/her) own use” means the defendant must have intended to use the goods for

(his/her) own purpose. “(His/Her) own use” would include selling, transferring, or giving the

merchandise to another. The defendant must also have taken possession with the intention of

evading payment of the purchase price. Such must have been (his/her) intention at the time

(he/she) took possession. If the defendant honestly intended to pay for the goods at the time

(he/she) took possession, but then forgot to do so before (he/she) left the store, (he/she) would

not have had the intention of evading payment and would not be guilty. Carelessness, no matter

how great, is not enough for this crime. The defendant must have had the dishonest intention of

evading payment.

[<If appropriate:> The statute defining the offense of shoplifting provides that certain evidence,

if believed, may be sufficient to establish intent. If you find that the defendant intentionally

concealed unpurchased goods or merchandise, either on the premises or outside the premises of

the store, you may then find, but are not required to, that (he/she) concealed the article with the

intention of converting the same to (his/her) own use without paying the purchase price thereof.

To “conceal” means to hide, and it would include any actions that would render it more difficult

to discover or identify the goods. The statute requires an intentional concealment, which means

some act intended to prevent detection or discovery of the goods.]

Element 4 - Value

The fourth 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 took

possession of the property of another, 2) the property consisted of goods, wares or merchandise

offered for sale by a store or other mercantile establishment, 3) the defendant specifically

intended to convert them to (his/her) own use without paying the purchase price, and 4) the

property had a value of <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 shoplifting, 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.