 |
6.1-17 Assault of an Employee of the Department of Correction in the First Degree -- § 53a-59b
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with assaulting an employee of the department of correction. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of assault of an employee of the department of correction in the first degree when (he/she) is (in the custody of the commissioner of correction / confined in any institution or facility of the department of correction) and commits assault in the first degree on an employee of the department of correction acting in the performance of (his/her) duties.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Committed assault
in the first degree
The first element is that the
defendant committed the crime of assault in the first degree. <Insert
elements from the instruction for the underlying crime:
-
§ 53a-59 (a) (1): Assault in the First Degree (Deadly Weapon or Dangerous Instrument), Instruction 6.1-1.
-
§ 53a-59 (a) (2): Assault in the First Degre (Maiming), Instruction 6.1-2.
-
§ 53a-59 (a) (3): Assault in the First Degree (Reckless Indifference), Instruction 6.1-3.
-
§ 53a-59 (a) (4): Assault in the First Degree (Aided by Two or More Persons), Instruction 6.1-4.
-
§ 53a-59 (a) (5): Assault in the First Degree (Discharge of a Firearm), Instruction 6.1-5.
Element 2 - DOC employee
The second element is that the person
assaulted was an employee of the department of correction acting in the
performance of (his/her) duties. The phrase "in the performance of (his/her)
duties" means that the person is acting within the scope of what (he/she) is
employed to do. The test is whether the person is acting within that compass or
is engaging in a personal frolic of (his/her) own. The question of whether
(he/she) was acting in good faith in the performance of (his/her) duties is a
factual question for you to determine on the basis of the evidence in the case.
<See commentary in Instruction 4.3-1 concerning interfering with an officer for additional analysis if necessary. >
Element 3 - Defendant in
custody or confined
The third element is that at the time
of the assault the defendant was (in the custody of the commissioner of
correction / confined in any institution or facility of the department of
correction). The term "in the custody of" means that the defendant is subject
to restraint by the commissioner of correction by virtue of a court order. [A
person who is on parole is still considered to be in the custody of the
commissioner of correction.]
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that <insert the concluding summary from the instruction for the underlying crime>, and that at the time of the assault <insert name of complainant> was an employee of the department of correction acting in the performance of (his/her) duties and the defendant was (in the custody of the commissioner of correction / confined in any institution or facility of the department of correction).
If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
assault on an employee of the department of correction, 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.