Criminal Jury Instructions Home

6.6-2  Custodial Interference in the Second Degree -- § 53a-98 (a) (1)

Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count __] with custodial interference in the second degree.  The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: 

a person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree when being a relative of a child who is less than sixteen years old and intending to hold such child permanently or for a protracted period and knowing that (he/she) has no legal right to do so, (he/she) takes or entices the child from the child's lawful custodian.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Relative of the child
The first element is that the defendant is a relative of the child.  "Relative" means a parent, ancestor, brother, sister, uncle or aunt.

Element 2 - Child under 16
The second element is that this occurred prior to the child's sixteenth birthday.

Element 3 - Intent
The third element is that the defendant specifically intended to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period.  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 4 - Knowledge of no legal right
The fourth element is that the defendant knew at the time that (he/she) had no legal right to take the child.  A person acts "knowingly" with respect to conduct or to a circumstance when (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists.  <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

Element 5 - Taken from legal custodian
The fifth element is that the defendant took or enticed the child from (his/her) lawful custodian.¹

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was a relative of the child, 2) the child was under 16 years of age, 3) the defendant intended to hold the child permanently or for a protracted period, 4) (he/she) had no legal right to take the child, and 5) the child was taken from (his/her) lawful custodian.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of custodial interference 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 If the legal custody of the child is an issue, the specific factual allegations may need to be explained and/or a definition of lawful custodian provided which may vary with the circumstances.

Commentary

A joint legal custodian may be guilty of custodial interference.  State v. Vakilzaden, 251 Conn. 656, 662-63 (1999) (overruling Marshak v. Marshak, 226 Conn. 652 (1993)).