Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.3-2

The defendant is charged [in count __ with arson in the second degree. The statute defining this

offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of arson in the second degree when, with intent to destroy or

damage a building, (he/she) starts a fire or causes an explosion and <insert

appropriate subsection:>

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (A): such act subjects another person to a substantial risk of bodily

injury.

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (B): such fire or explosion was intended to conceal some other criminal

act.

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (C): such fire or explosion was intended to subject another person to a

deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured or protected by the constitution or

laws of this state or of the United States.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Started or caused fire or explosion

The first element is that the defendant started or caused a fire or explosion. To “start” means to

commence. To “cause an act to be done” is to bring it about. The fire started need not be a

tremendous one. The mere striking of a match can be the start of a fire. The fire or explosion

must be incendiary in origin. That is, it must not be accidental or caused by carelessness. In

considering whether the fire or explosion was incendiary in origin, you may rely upon all the

facts and circumstances at the time and place of the fire or explosion, as you find them to have

been proved, and may draw any reasonable or logical inferences from such facts. The mere fact

that there was fire or explosion damage to a building does not create an inference that its origin

was incendiary.

Element 2 - Intent

The second element is that the defendant specifically intended to destroy or damage a building.

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.>

Ordinarily, “building” implies a structure that may be entered and used by people, as a residence

or for business, or for other purposes involving occupancy by people, whether or not it is actually

entered and used as such. <Insert one or both of the following parts of the definition as

appropriate:>

• The law has expanded this definition to include, in addition to what we ordinarily know

as a building, any watercraft, aircraft, trailer, sleeping car, railroad car, other structure or

vehicle or any building with a valid certificate of occupancy.

• The statutory definition also provides that where a building consists of separate units,

such as, but not limited to separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, any unit not

occupied by the defendant is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate

building.

Element 3 - Additional factor

The third element is that <insert as appropriate:>

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (A): the defendant’s act of starting a fire or causing an explosion

subjected another person to a substantial risk of bodily injury. A “substantial risk of

bodily injury” means a risk that is real, considerable and material.

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (B): the defendant’s intention was to conceal some other criminal act.

You must find that a criminal act was committed, and that the defendant started the fire

or caused the explosion with the intent to conceal that act. In this case, the state claims

that the crime of <insert name of crime> was committed. The elements of that offense

are <refer to instruction on alleged crime>.

• § 53a-112 (a) (1) (C): the defendant’s act of starting a fire or causing an explosion was

intended to subject another person to a deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity

secured or protected by the constitution or laws of this state or of the United States.

Rights, privileges and immunities are generally synonymous terms referring to the

guarantees that all citizens of this country enjoy, including but not limited to ownership

of property, life, liberty and the exercise of civil rights.

Conclusion

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

caused a fire or explosion, 2) (he/she) intended to destroy or damage <identify the building>, and

3) <insert appropriate additional factor>.

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

of the crime of arson 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 State v. Houle, 105 Conn. App. 813, 818 n.4 (2008) (on the meaning of incendiary); State v.

Gaines, 36 Conn. App. 454, 458-59 (1995) (on the meaning of “causing a fire”). The presence

of an accelerant may support an inference that the defendant started a fire and thereby intended

to conceal a crime. State v. Ziolkowski, 351 Conn. 143, 166-68 (2025).

2 State v. Dubose, 75 Conn. App. 163, 174-75, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 (2003); see also State

v. Ziolkowski, supra, 351 Conn. 167 (removal of fire safety devices and ductwork supported

finding that defendant intended to damage or destroy building); State v. Stephenson, 207 Conn.

App. 154, 179-81 (2021) (defendant’s intent to damage or destroy contents of building supported

inference that he also intended to destroy building itself), cert. denied, 342 Conn. 912 (2022).