 |
7.3-1 Prostitution -- § 53a-82
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with prostitution. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of prostitution when such person (engages / agrees / offers to engage) in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element
1
-
Sexual
conduct
The
first
element
is
that
the
defendant
(engaged
/
agreed
to
/
offered
to
engage)
in
sexual
conduct
with
another
person.
The
phrase
"sexual
conduct"
is
not
defined
in
the
law
and
has
its
ordinary
meaning.1
Any
conduct
of
a
sexual
nature
intended
to
gratify
another
person's
sexual
desire
or
sexual
pleasure
is
included
within
the
terms
of
this
statute.
Actual
sexual
conduct
is
not
necessary
for
a
conviction.
An
offer
or
solicitation
or
agreement
to
engage
in
sexual
conduct
with
another
person
in
return
for
a
fee
is
sufficient.
Also,
gratuitous
sex
is
not
within
the
purview
of
the
statute.
[<Insert if appropriate:> The sex of the two parties or prospective parties to the sexual conduct engaged in, contemplated, or solicited is immaterial. Therefore, it is no defense that the persons were of the same sex or that the person who received, agreed to receive, or solicited a fee was a male and the person who paid or agreed or offered to pay such fee was a female.]
Element
2
-
Fee
The
second
element
is
that
the
sexual
conduct,
or
the
offer
of
sexual
conduct,
was
in
exchange
for
a
fee.
An
offer
or
solicitation
or
agreement
to
engage
in
sexual
conduct
with
another
person
in
return
for
a
fee
is
sufficient.
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant (engaged / agreed to / offered to engage) in sexual conduct with another person, and 2) the sexual conduct was in return for a fee.
If
you
unanimously
find
that
the
state
has
proved
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt
each
of
the
elements
of
the
crime
of
prostitution,
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 State v. Allen, 37 Conn. Sup. 506, 510-11 (App. Sess. 1980).
Commentary
The constitutionality of § 53a-82 has been upheld in State v. Butkus, 37 Conn. Sup. 515 (App. Sess. 1980), and State v. Allen, 37 Conn. Sup. 506, 510-11 (App. Sess. 1980).
The
mental
state
required
is
only
the
general
intent
to
do
the
proscribed
act.
State
v.
Butkus,
supra,
37
Conn.
Sup.
517-19;
State
v.
Allen,
supra,
37
Conn.
Sup.
513
n.4.