6.6-3 Custodial Interference in the Second Degree -- § 53a-98 (a) (2)
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 knowing that (he/she) has no legal right to do so, (he/she) takes or entices from lawful custody any (incompetent person / person entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person or institution).
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Took person
The first element is that the defendant took or enticed from lawful custody (an incompetent person / a person entrusted to the custody of another person or institution). ["Incompetent person" means a person who has been adjudged incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction."1] <Insert specific allegations concerning the status of the person.>
Element 2 - Knowledge of no
The second element is that the defendant knew at the time, that (he/she) had no legal right to do so. 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.>
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant took or enticed (an incompetent person / person entrusted to the custody of another person or institution), and 2) (he/she) knew that (he/she) had no legal right to do so.
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 General Statutes § 17a-680 (12).
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)).