History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

   
Criminal Jury Instructions

Criminal Jury Instructions Home

8.9-1  Interfering with Emergency Call -- § 53a-183b

Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count __] with interfering with an emergency call.  The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: 

a person is guilty of interfering with an emergency call when such person, with the intent of preventing another person from making or completing (a 911 telephone call / telephone call or radio communication to any law enforcement agency) to (request police protection / report the commission of a crime), (physically / verbally) prevents or hinders such other person from making or completing such (telephone call / radio communication).

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements1 beyond a reasonable doubt: 

Element 1 - Prevented call
The first element is that the defendant (physically / verbally) prevented or hindered another person from making or completing a (911 telephone call / telephone call or radio communication to any law enforcement agency).

Element 2 - Purpose of call
The second element is that the purpose of such call was to (request police protection / report the commission of a crime).

Element 3 - Intent
The third element is that the defendant acted with the specific intent to prevent the other person from making or completing such call.  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) the defendant (physically / verbally) prevented or hindered another person from making or completing a (911 telephone call /  telephone call or radio communication to any law enforcement agency), 2) the call was to (request police protection / report the commission of a crime), and 3) (he/she) did so with the specific intent to prevent the other person from making or completing such call.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of interfering with an emergency call, 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 See State v. Solomon, 103 Conn. App. 530, 538 (2007).


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch