 |
6.1-12 Assault in the Second Degree with a Motor Vehicle -- § 53a-60d
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count ___] with assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of assault 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 serious physical injury to 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 - Operated a motor
vehicle
The first element is that the
defendant was 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 a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such
result. <See
Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.>
Element 2 - While under the
influence
The second element is that at the
time, the defendant was under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug /
both). A person is
under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / any drug / both) when, as a
result of drinking such beverage or introducing such drug or both into (his/her)
system, (his/her) 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 a motor vehicle.
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 - Caused serious physical
injury
The third element is that the
defendant proximately caused serious physical injury to <insert name of
person injured>. This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate
cause of the person's injuries. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that <insert name of person injured> was injured as a result of the
actions of the defendant. <See
Proximate Cause, Instruction 2.6-1.>
"Serious physical injury" is something more serious than mere physical injury, which is defined as "impairment of physical condition or pain." It is more than a minor or superficial injury. It is defined by statute as "physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ."
Element 4 - Injury as a consequence
of the intoxicating liquor or drug
The fourth element is that
the serious physical injury of <insert
name of person injured>
was a consequence of the (intoxicating liquor / drug / both). The key word
is consequence. "Consequence" means that which naturally flows from a
preceding action or condition, the effect of a cause, the result. In other
words, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the serious physical
injury of <insert name of person injured>
resulted from the effect of the (intoxicating liquor / drug / both) on the
defendant while (he/she) was operating a motor vehicle.
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was operating a motor vehicle, 2) the defendant was under the influence of (intoxicating liquor / drug / both), 3) the defendant caused serious physical injury to <insert name of person injured> while operating a motor vehicle, and 4) the effect of the (intoxicating liquor / drug / both) on the defendant was the cause of the injuries.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of assault 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.
Commentary
The prima facie "provisions of
[General Statutes] § 14-227a (d) do not apply to a prosecution of assault in the
second degree with a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-60d (a)." State v. Leroy, 16 Conn. App. 472, 477 (1988).