9.1-17 Possession of a Shoplifting Device -- § 53a-127f
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with possession of a shoplifting device. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of possession of a shoplifting device when such person has in such person's possession any device, instrument or other thing specifically designed or adapted to advance or facilitate the offense of larceny by shoplifting by defeating any antitheft or inventory control device, under circumstances manifesting an intent to use the same in the commission of larceny by shoplifting.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Possession
The first element is that the defendant had in (his/her) possession any device, instrument or other thing specifically designed or adapted to advance or facilitate the offense of larceny by shoplifting by defeating any antitheft or inventory control device. <See Possession, Instruction 2.11-1.>
Element 2 - Intent
The second element is that the circumstances of the defendant's possession of the device manifested an intent to use the device in the commission of shoplifting. 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.>
A person is guilty of "shoplifting" when (he/she) intentionally takes possession of any goods, wares or merchandise offered or exposed for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment with the intention of converting the same to (his/her) own use, without paying the purchase price. <See Larceny by Shoplifting, Instruction 9.1-16.>
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 1) possessed a shoplifting device, and 2) the circumstances were such that it can be inferred that (he/she) intended to use the device in the commission of larceny by shoplifting.
If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of possession of a
shoplifting device, 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