Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.1-17

The defendant is charged [in count__] with possession of a shoplifting device. The statute

defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of possession of a shoplifting device when such person has in such

person’s possession any device, instrument or other thing specifically designed or

adapted to advance or facilitate the offense of larceny by shoplifting by defeating any

antitheft or inventory control device, under circumstances manifesting an intent to use

the same in the commission of larceny by shoplifting.

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 had in (his/her) possession any device, instrument or other

thing specifically designed or adapted to advance or facilitate the offense of larceny by

shoplifting by defeating any antitheft or inventory control device. <See Possession, Instruction

2.11-1.>

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the circumstances of the defendant’s possession of the device

manifested an intent to use the device in the commission of shoplifting. 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.>

A person is guilty of “shoplifting” when (he/she) 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.

<See Larceny by Shoplifting, Instruction 9.1-16.>

Conclusion

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

shoplifting device, and 2) the circumstances were such that it can be inferred that (he/she)

intended to use the device in the commission of larceny by shoplifting.

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

of the crime of possession of a shoplifting device, 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.