6.5-6 Unlawful Restraint in the Second Degree -- § 53a-96
Revised to May 20, 2011
The defendant is charged [in count __] with unlawful restraint in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of unlawful restraint in the second degree when (he/she) restrains another person.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Intent to restrain1
The first element is that the defendant specifically intended to restrain <insert name of person>. 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.>
Element 2 - Restrained
The second element is that the defendant restrained <insert name of person> by moving (him/her) from one place to another, or by confining (him/her) in some place in such a manner as to interfere substantially with (his/her) liberty. There is no requirement that the movement be of any specific distance or that the confinement last any specific period of time. There need not be any movement at all -- the person could be confined by preventing (him/her) from leaving a place where (he/she) was.
Element 3 - Without consent
The third element is that <insert name of person> did not consent to the restraint. <Insert as appropriate:>
<If person is an adult:> Consent must have been actual and not simply acquiescence brought about by force, fear, shock, or deception. The act must have been truly voluntary. Consent may be express or you may find that it is implied from the circumstances that you find existed. Whether there was consent is a question of fact for you to determine. The defendant has no burden to prove consent. The state must prove the lack of consent.
<If person in less than sixteen or an incompetent person:> Without consent in this case means by any means whatever,2 including acquiescence of the person, if (he/she) is (a child less than sixteen years old / an incompetent person) and (the parent or guardian / person or institution having lawful control or custody of (him/her)) has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) specifically intended to restrain
<insert name of restrained person>, 2) restrained
If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
unlawful restraint 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 Unlawful restraint is a specific intent crime. State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 570 (2008).
The "any means whatever" language was intended "to protect young children and
incompetent persons from being kidnapped when the victim agrees to go with the
kidnapper because of promises of favors or gifts. A competent adult's actual
consent to the restraint would negate lack of consent if not induced by
deception, force, fear or shock; in other words, with no compulsion or
deception. . . . The 'any means whatever' language should not be given in an
instruction when . . . the victim is a competent adult." State v. Benjamin,
86 Conn. App. 344, 355 (2004).