Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.2-3

The defendant is charged [in count__] with burglary in the second degree. The statute defining

this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when such person unlawfully

(enters / remains in)

1 a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime

is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Entered/remained in dwelling

The first element is that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully (entered / remained in) a

dwelling. A person acts “knowingly” with respect to conduct or circumstances when (he/she) is

aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. <See Knowledge,

Instruction 2.3-3.>

“Dwelling” means a building that is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night.

Therefore, a structure that cannot possibly be occupied as a lodging cannot be a dwelling.

You must also determine whether the defendant unlawfully (entered / remained in) the dwelling.

A person unlawfully (enters / remains in) a dwelling when (he/she) is not licensed or privileged

to do so. To be “licensed or privileged,” the defendant must either have consent from the person

in possession of the dwelling or have some other right to be in the dwelling.

[To “enter” a dwelling the intruder need not necessarily place (his/her) entire body inside the

dwelling. Inserting any part of (his/her) body, or an implement or weapon held by (him/her),

within the dwelling is sufficient to constitute such entry as long as it is without license or

privilege. It does not matter how an intruder may actually have entered; if (he/she) did so

without license or privilege, (he/she) has entered unlawfully.]

[A person may have entered a dwelling lawfully, that is, (he/she) had the right or had been given

permission, but that right is terminated or the permission withdrawn by someone who had a right

to terminate or withdraw it. You may find that the defendant “unlawfully remained” in the

dwelling under these circumstances.]

Element 2 - Intent to commit a crime

The second element is that the defendant intended to commit a crime in that dwelling. 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.>

Even if the defendant never actually committed a crime in the dwelling, if the evidence

establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) was there with such intention, this is

sufficient to prove that the defendant unlawfully (entered / remained in) the dwelling with the

intent to commit a crime therein. Furthermore, the necessary intent to commit a crime must be

an intent to commit either a felony or a misdemeanor in addition to the unlawful entering or

remaining in the dwelling.

In this case, the state claims that the defendant intended to commit <insert crime>. <Refer to the

count in which this crime is charged or, if uncharged, give the elements of the crime.>

Element 3 - Persons present in dwelling

The third element is that when the defendant (entered / remained in) the dwelling, a person other

than a participant in the crime was actually present in the dwelling.

Conclusion

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

(entered / remained in) a dwelling, 2) (he/she) had the intent to commit a crime, and 3) a person

other than a participant in the crime was actually present in the dwelling.

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

of the crime of burglary in the second degree, 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 Do not instruct on both “unlawful entering” and “unlawful remaining” if the information and

the evidence could support a conceptual distinction between the two. See “enters or remains

unlawfully” in the glossary.

2 When instructing on burglary, “trial courts should name and define the elements of the crimes

for which there is evidence to support a finding of an intent to commit . . . .” State v. Kyle A., 348

Conn. 437, 446 (2024). It is the state’s obligation to determine the intended crime or crimes. Id.,

451-52. “[F]ailure . . . to instruct the jury on the elements of a crime so identified by the state

will constitute an obvious error that will warrant reversal if it results in a manifest injustice.” Id.,

452.