Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 9.5-11

Note: First, second and third degree differ as to mens rea and the amount of the resulting

damage. First degree, § 53a-117e, requires intentional conduct and damage exceeding

$1,500. Second degree, § 53a-117f, requires either intentional conduct and damage

exceeding $250, or reckless conduct and damage exceeding $1,500. Third degree, § 53a-

117g, requires reckless conduct and damage exceeding $250.

The defendant is charged [in count__] with criminal damage of a landlord’s property in the (first

/ second / third) degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a tenant is guilty of criminal damage of a landlord’s property in the (first / second /

third) degree when, having no reasonable ground to believe that (he/she) has a right to

do so, (he/she) (intentionally / recklessly) damages the tangible property of the

landlord of the premises in an amount exceeding (one thousand five hundred / two

hundred fifty) dollars.

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

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Tenant

The first element is that the defendant was a tenant. “Tenant”

1 means the lessee, sublessee or

person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit or premises to the exclusion

of others. “Premises” means a dwelling unit and the structure of which it is a part, facilities and

appurtenances, i.e., equipment within the dwelling unit, and grounds, areas and facilities held out

for the use of tenants generally or whose use is promised to the tenant. “Dwelling unit” means

any house or building or portion thereof, which is occupied, is designed to be occupied, or is

rented, leased or hired out to be occupied as a home or residence of one or more persons.

Element 2 - Damaged property

The second element is that the defendant damaged tangible property. “Tangible property” is

something that can be felt and seen. The statute addresses actual, physical damage to property.

Element 3 - Landlord

The third element is that the property is that of the landlord of the premises. “Landlord” means

the owner, lessor or sublessor of the dwelling unit, the building of which it is a part or the

premises. “Owner” means one or more persons, jointly or severally, in whom is vested 1) all or

part of the legal title to property or 2) all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present

use and enjoyment of the premises and includes a mortgagee in possession. “Person” means an

individual, corporation, limited liability company, the state or any political subdivision thereof or

agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a

joint common interest, and any other legal or commercial entity.

Element 4 - Value

The fourth element is that the defendant caused damage to this property in an amount exceeding

($1,500 / $250); that is, the value of the property was lowered by at least that amount. The

decrease in value may be proved by evidence showing the cost of repairs necessary to restore the

property to its condition immediately before the alleged damage by the defendant. Damage may

also be proved by evidence showing a property value decrease in excess of ($1,500 / $250).

Element 5 - Intentionally / Recklessly

The fifth element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

• intentionally caused this damage. A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result

when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result.3 <See Intent: Specific,

Instruction 2.3-1.>

• recklessly caused this damage. A person acts “recklessly” with respect to a result or

circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and

unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See

Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.>

Element 6 - No right

The sixth element is that the defendant had no reasonable ground to believe that (he/she) had a

right to damage the property. 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 was a tenant,

2) (he/she) damaged or tampered with tangible property, 3) the property belonged to the landlord

of the premises, 4) the property damage exceeded ($1,500 / $250), 5) the defendant (intentionally

/ recklessly) damaged the property, and 6) (he/she) had no reasonable ground to believe that

(he/she) had a right to damage the property.

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

of the crime of criminal damage of a landlord’s property in the (first / second / third) 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 Definitions for “tenant,” landlord,” and “premises” are from § 47a-1, incorporated by reference

in §§ 53a-117e, 53a-117f, and 53a-117g.

2 Intentional conduct applies to first degree (with damages exceeding $1,500) and second degree

(with damages exceeding $250); recklessness applies to second degree (with damages exceeding

$1,500) and third degree (with damages exceeding $250).

3 In State v. Leuders, 225 Conn. App. 612, 625-27, cert. denied, 349 Conn. 920 (2024), the court

determined that because the trier of fact is permitted to infer that an individual intends the natural

consequences of his voluntary conduct, the state offered sufficient evidence that the defendant

intentionally damaged property when it presented photographic and testimonial evidence

concerning the nature and extent of the damage coupled with statements of the defendant

demonstrating consciousness of guilt.