model instruction in Connecticut

2022The court stated: ‘‘Although the model instruction is similar to the instruc- tions this court approved in [State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 335–36 nn.2–3 and 336, 363 A.2d 72 (1975)] and Collins because it informs the jury not to consider investigative inadequacy ‘in the abstract’ . . . the model instruction, unlike the instructions in Williams and Collins, improperly fails to inform the jury that a defendant may present evidence of investigative inade- quacy in his or her particular case.

2022The court stated: ‘‘Although the model instruction is similar to the instruc- tions this court approved in [State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 335–36 nn.2–3 and 336, 363 A.2d 72 (1975)] and Collins because it informs the jury not to consider investigative inadequacy ‘in the abstract’ . . . the model instruction, unlike the instructions in Williams and Collins, improperly fails to inform the jury that a defendant may present evidence of investigative inade- quacy in his or her particular case.

2025Although the court’s instruction included a definition for only one type of serious physical injury set forth in § 53a-3 (4) (i.e., serious disfigurement), ‘‘[j]ury instructions need not be exhaustive, perfect or techni- cally accurate, so long as they are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) San- chez v. Hartford, 227 Conn. App. 771, 779 , 322 A.3d 1108 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 922 , 325 A.3d 1093 (2024).

2025Here, the defendant does not contend that the instruc- tion the trial court gave was an incorrect statement of law, and he concedes that the court’s instruction on serious physical injury followed verbatim the model instruction, which incorporates the definition of serious physical injury set forth in § 53a-3 (4), which, in turn, lists several types of physical injury that constitute seri- ous physical injury.20 See State v. Daniel B., 164 Conn. App. 318 , 349, 137 A.3d 837 (2016) (‘‘[w]hile not disposi- tive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruc- tion’s uniformity with the mod

2025Here, the defendant does not contend that the instruc- tion the trial court gave was an incorrect statement of law, and he concedes that the court’s instruction on serious physical injury followed verbatim the model instruction, which incorporates the definition of serious physical injury set forth in § 53a-3 (4), which, in turn, lists several types of physical injury that constitute seri- ous physical injury.20 See State v. Daniel B., 164 Conn. App. 318 , 349, 137 A.3d 837 (2016) (‘‘[w]hile not disposi- tive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruc- tion’s uniformity with the mod

2022The language that the defen- dant requested be added to the model jury instruction— i.e., that the jury may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case—would have similarly apprised the jury of the defendant’s right to present an investigative inad- equacy defense and the jury’s right to consider it in evaluating the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 853–54 (citing State v. Collins, supra, 299 Conn. 567 ; State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975

2021The Appellate Court also rejected the defendant’s contention that, in light of recent developments in the law, as indicated in this court’s recent decision in State v. Wright ( 322 Conn. 270 ), the model instruction no longer reflected the correct state- ment of the law.

2019Although reaching a unanimous ver- dict is an important public policy goal; id., 74 ; the defen- dant’s due process rights also must be protected, and the defendant has the right to ‘have each and every juror vote his or her conscience irrespective of whether such vote results in a hung jury.’ Id., 76 . ‘‘To ensure that such a cautionary reminder be given by our trial courts in future cases, our Supreme Court adopted the following language as a model instruction: ‘The instructions that I shall give you now are only to provide you with additional information so that you may return to your delib

2019Although reaching a unanimous ver- dict is an important public policy goal; id., 74 ; the defen- dant’s due process rights also must be protected, and the defendant has the right to ‘have each and every juror vote his or her conscience irrespective of whether such vote results in a hung jury.’ Id., 76 . ‘‘To ensure that such a cautionary reminder be given by our trial courts in future cases, our Supreme Court adopted the following language as a model instruction: ‘The instructions that I shall give you now are only to provide you with additional information so that you may return to your delib

2013In addition to the model criminal jury instruction from the judicial branch website that the court intended to give to the jury; see Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions (4th Ed. 2010) § 7.1-1, available at http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/ part7/7.1-l.htm (last visited July 18, 2013) (copy contained in the file of this case in the Appellate Court clerk’s office); 3 the defendant proposed adding to the instruction language first articulated by our Supreme Court in State v. Smith, 210 Conn. 132 , 554 A.2d 713 (1989) (Smith instruction), to inform the jury on the issue of consent. 4 The court

2013In addition to the model criminal jury instruction from the judicial branch website that the court intended to give to the jury; see Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions (4th Ed. 2010) § 7.1-1, available at http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/ part7/7.1-l.htm (last visited July 18, 2013) (copy contained in the file of this case in the Appellate Court clerk’s office); 3 the defendant proposed adding to the instruction language first articulated by our Supreme Court in State v. Smith, 210 Conn. 132 , 554 A.2d 713 (1989) (Smith instruction), to inform the jury on the issue of consent. 4 The court

1978United States v. Holley, supra, 275 ; United States v. Barber, supra, 527-28.