 |
4.1-4 Bribe Receiving by a Labor Official -- § 53a-159
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count ___] with bribe receiving by a labor official. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a labor official is guilty of bribe receiving by a labor official if (he/she) (solicits / accepts / agrees to accept) any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that such benefit will influence (him/her) in respect to any of (his/her) acts, decisions or duties as such labor official.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Labor official
The first element is that the
defendant was a labor official within the meaning of that term, on the dates
alleged. "Labor
official" means any duly appointed or elected representative of a labor
organization or any duly appointed or elected trustee or representative of an
employee welfare trust fund.
Element 2 - Benefit sought
The second element is that the
defendant (solicited / accepted / agreed to accept) a benefit of <insert
benefit> from <insert alleged provider of bribe>. "Benefit"
means monetary advantage or anything regarded by the beneficiary as monetary
advantage, including a benefit to any person or entity in whose welfare the
beneficiary is interested.
Element 3 - Intent to influence
The third element is that the
defendant (solicited / accepted / agreed to accept) that benefit upon the
understanding that such benefit would influence (him/her) in respect to any of
(his/her) acts, decisions or duties as a labor official.
You must find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (solicited / accepted / agreed to accept) the benefit with the specific intent that the receipt of the benefit would influence (his/her) acts, decisions or duties. 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 was a labor official on the dates alleged, 2) the defendant (solicited / accepted / agreed to accept) a benefit of <insert benefit> from <insert alleged provider of bribe>, and 3) the defendant (solicited / accepted / agreed to accept) that benefit upon the understanding that such benefit would influence (him/her) in respect to any of (his/her) acts, decisions or duties as a labor official.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of bribe receiving by a labor
official, 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.