Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.1-30

Vehicle -- § 53a-119b (c) (2)

New, June 13, 2008

The defendant is charged [in count__] with interfering or tampering with a motor vehicle. The

statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of interfering or tampering with a motor vehicle when, with intent

and without right to do so, (he/she) damages any motor vehicle or damages or

removes any of its parts or components.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Damage to motor vehicle

The first element is that the defendant damaged a motor vehicle or removed any of its parts or

components. The motor vehicle must have been damaged in such a way as to diminish or lose its

value. The motor vehicle is damaged if it sustained a decrease or loss in its value or utility in

comparison with its previous condition.

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the defendant specifically intended to do damage to the motor

vehicle. 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.>

Element 3 - No authorization

The third element is that the defendant did not have the right or authorization to act as (he/she)

did and had no reasonable ground to believe that (he/she) did. A “reasonable ground to believe”

means that a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation, viewing the circumstances from the

defendant’s point of view, would have shared that belief.

Conclusion

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

motor vehicle or removed any of its parts or components, 2) (he/she) intended to damage the

motor vehicle, and 3) (he/she) had no right to do so.

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

of the crime of interfering or tampering with a motor vehicle, 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.