6.7-7 Harassment in the Second Degree (Telephone) -- § 53a-183 (a) (3)
Revised to December 1, 2007 (modified May 20, 2011)
The defendant is charged [in count __] with harassment in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, (he/she) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Intent
The first element is that the defendant intended to harass, annoy or alarm another person. 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.>
"Harass" means "to trouble, worry or torment." "Annoy" means to "irritate, vex, bother, as by repeated action." "Alarm" means "to make suddenly afraid, anxious, frightened."
Element 2 - Telephone call
The second element is that the defendant made a telephone call in a manner that was likely to cause annoyance or alarm. It does not matter whether the defendant had a conversation with <insert name of person>. It only matters that (he/she) made the telephone call in a manner that was likely to cause annoyance or alarm. <Describe specific allegations.>1
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant intended to harass, annoy or alarm <insert name of person>, and 2) made a telephone call to <insert name of person> in a manner that was likely to cause annoyance or alarm.
If you unanimously find that the
state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
harassment in the second degree, 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
1 If there is any ambiguity in the state’s case as to whether the state is relying on the content of any conversation that took place, the court must make it clear that the jury is “to examine only whether the act of the calling and causing the ringing of the telephone was harassing, and to look to the speech only for the intent in physically making the telephone call.” State v. Moulton, 120 Conn. 330, 339 (2010); see also State v. LaFontaine, 128 Conn. App. 546, 555-58 (2011).