Criminal Jury Instructions Home

5.3-1  Manslaughter in the Second Degree with a Motor Vehicle -- § 53a-56b

Revised to December 1, 2007

The defendant is charged [in count ___] with manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle.  The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows: 

a person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle when, while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both), (he/she) causes the death of another person as a consequence of the effect of such (liquor / drug).

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

Element 1 - Caused death while operating motor vehicle
The first element is that the defendant caused the death of <insert name of decedent> while operating a motor vehicle.  A person "operates" a motor vehicle when, while in the vehicle, (he/she) intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency that alone or in sequence sets in motion the motive power of the vehicle.  A person acts "intentionally" with respect to conduct when (his/her) conscious objective is to engage in such conduct.  <See Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.> 

Element 2 - Under the influence
The second element is that the defendant was under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both).  A person is under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / or both) when as a result of (drinking such beverage / ingesting such drug / or both) that person's mental, physical, or nervous processes have become so affected that (he/she) lacks to an appreciable degree the ability to function properly in relation to the operation of (his/her) motor vehicle.²  It is for you to determine if the defendant was operating under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both).  That is, you must decide in view of all the other evidence in the case, whether the amount of (liquor consumed / drugs used) by the defendant so affected (his/her) mental, nervous and physical processes that (he/she) lacked to an appreciable degree the ability to function properly with relation to the operation of (his/her) automobile. 

Element 3 - Proximate cause
The third element is that the defendant's intoxication was the proximate cause of the death of <insert name of decedent>.  You must find proved beyond a reasonable doubt that <insert name of decedent> died as a result of the defendant's operation of a motor vehicle.  <See Proximate Cause, Instruction 2.6-1.> 

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant caused the death of <insert name of decedent> while operating a motor vehicle, 2) the defendant was under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both) at the time, and 3) the death of <insert name of decedent> was a consequence of the effect of the (liquor / drug / both) on the defendant.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle, 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. Haight, 279 Conn. 546, 559 (2006); State v. Swift, 125 Conn. 399, 401 (1939).

² State v. Gordon, 84 Conn. App. 519, 527 (2004); State v. Sanko, 62 Conn. App. 34, 41, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 905 (2001); State v. Andrews, 108 Conn. 209, 216 (1928).

Commentary

On proximate cause, see State v. Kwaak, 21 Conn. App. 138, 146, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 811 (1990); see also State v. Lawson, 99 Conn. App. 233, 240-43, cert. denied 282 Conn. 901 (2007) (court properly declined to instruct on intervening cause). 

Lesser included offenses
Misconduct with a motor vehicle is not a lesser included offense of manslaughter with a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  State v. Kristy, 11 Conn. App. 473, 484 n.7, cert. denied, 282 Conn. 901 (1987).  Neither driving while intoxicated nor reckless driving is a lesser included offense of manslaughter with a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  State v. Wyatt, 80 Conn. App. 703, 711-14 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 918 (2004).

As of October 1, 2006, driving while intoxicated no longer requires that the offense take place on a public highway, so that a violation of § 14-227a (a) (1) might now be a lesser included offense of manslaughter with a motor vehicle while intoxicated.