 |
8.6-5 Criminal Advocacy -- § 53a-179
Revised to December 1, 2007
The defendant is charged [in count __] with criminal advocacy. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:
a person is guilty of criminal advocacy when <insert appropriate subsection:>
§ 53a-179 (a) (1): (he/she) advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state or any subdivision thereof by imminent dangerous action.
§ 53a-179 (a) (2): with knowledge of its contents, (he/she) (publishes / sells / distributes) any document which advocates the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state or any subdivision thereof by imminent dangerous action.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Element 1 - Advocated
overthrow of
government
The first element is
that the defendant
advocated the
overthrow of the
existing form of
government of this
state or any
subdivision of the
state.
[<Insert if defendant is charged under § 53a-179 (a) (2):> The defendant must have done so by (publishing / selling / distributing) one or more documents and (he/she) must have had knowledge of the contents. <See Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>]
Element 2 - Imminent
dangerous action
The second element is
that (his/her) conduct
included an incitement
to imminent dangerous
action. "Imminent"
means impending or
likely to occur
immediately. An
"imminent dangerous
action" is that type
of act or action that
is full of danger or
is threatening,
menacing or perilous.
Conclusion
In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant advocated the overthrow of the existing form of government of this state or any subdivision of the state [by (publishing / selling / distributing) one or more documents], and 2) (his/her) advocacy included an incitement to imminent dangerous action.
If you unanimously
find that the state
has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt each
of the elements of
criminal advocacy,
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.