4.6-3 Rioting at a Correctional Institution -- § 53a-179b
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count ___] with rioting at a correctional institution. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of rioting at a correctional institution when (he/she) (incites / instigates / organizes / connives at / causes / aids / abets / assists / takes part in) any (disorder / disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to the rules and regulations of such institution).
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Rioting
The first element is that the defendant (incited / instigated / organized / connived at / caused / aided / abetted / took part in) any (disorder / disturbance / strike / riot / organized disobedience to the rules and regulations of the institution) at <insert name of facility>.
The words "incites, instigates, organizes, connives at, causes, aids, abets, or takes part" have their ordinary meaning. The words "disorder, disturbance, strike, riot, and organized disobedience to the rules and regulations" also have their ordinary meaning. There is no requirement that any particular number of persons take part in any incident.1
Element 2 - Intent
The second element is that the defendant acted willfully, that is, not accidentally or inadvertently. <Review the evidence as to the defendant's participation in the disturbance.>2
Element 3 - At a correctional
The third element is that <insert name of facility> is a correctional institution. A "correctional institution" is any correctional facility administered by the commissioner of correction.
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) <insert specific allegations> at <insert name of facility>, 2) the defendant acted willfully, and 3) <insert name of facility> is a correctional institution.
If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
rioting at a correctional institution, 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. Nixon, 32 Conn. App. 224, 246 (1993), aff'd on other grounds, 231 Conn. 545 (1995).
2 See State v. Nixon, supra, 32
Conn. App. 250 (rioting at a correctional institute is a general intent crime).
See also State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 743-44 (1993) (that the
defendant had slashed the neck of a correction officer would not, by itself, be
enough to satisfy this element; there must be some evidence that the defendant
had actively participated in the riot, such as exhorting other inmates to take
place in the disturbance).