 |
8.6-3 Unlawful Assembly -- § 53a-177
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with unlawful assembly. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of unlawful assembly when <insert as appropriate:>
(he/she) assembles with two or more other persons for the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot.
being present at an assembly which either has or develops the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot, (he/she) remains there with intent to advance that purpose.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 -
Assembly
The first
element is
that the
defendant
(assembled
with two or
more other
persons / was
present at an
assembly of
two or more
other
persons).
Element 2 -
Purpose
The second
element is
that <insert
as appropriate:>
-
the assembly was for the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot.
-
the assembly had or developed the purpose of engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot.
<See Riot in the Second Degree, Instruction 8.6-2.>
Element 3 -
Intent
The third
element is
that the
defendant was
at or remained
at the
assembly with
the specific
intent to
engage in
conduct that
would
constitute the
crime of
riot. 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.>
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) that the defendant (assembled with two or more other persons / was present at an assembly of two or more other persons), 2) the assembly (was for the purpose of / developed the purpose of) engaging in conduct constituting the crime of riot, and 3) the defendant specifically intended to advance that purpose.
If you
unanimously
find that the
state has
proved beyond
a reasonable
doubt each of
the elements
of unlawful
assembly, 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.