 |
8.6-2 Riot in the Second Degree -- § 53a-176
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with riot in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of riot in the second degree when, simultaneously with two or more other persons, he engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby (intentionally / recklessly) (causes / creates a grave risk of causing) public alarm.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1
–
Tumultuous
and
violent
conduct
The first
element is
that the
defendant
engaged in
tumultuous
and
violent
conduct
that
involved
physical
violence
or
portended
imminent
physical
violence.1
"Imminent"
means
impending
or likely
to occur
immediately.
Element 2
- Two or
more other
persons
The second
element is
that
(he/she)
did so
simultaneously
with two
or more
other
persons.
Element 3
- Intent
The third
element is
that the
defendant
-
acted with the intent to (cause / create a grave risk of causing) public alarm. 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.>
-
recklessly (caused / created a grave risk of causing) public alarm. 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.>
"Alarm" means a fear caused by the sudden realization of danger. "Public alarm" is when such a fear is created in a public area and affects a large number of people in that area.
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant engaged in tumultuous and violent conduct, 2) (he/she) did so simultaneously with two or more other persons, and 3) (he/she) (intentionally / recklessly) (caused / created a grave risk of causing) public alarm.
If you
unanimously
find that
the state
has proved
beyond a
reasonable
doubt each
of the
elements
of riot 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 In State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 811-12 (1994), a case that involved the disorderly conduct statute, § 53a-182 (a), the court construed the phrase "[e]ngages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior" to refer to physical action. See Disorderly Conduct, Instruction 8.4-8.