Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53 — CRIMES · Chapter 941 — Offenses Against Private Property
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-80a (2026)

Manufacture of bombs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person, other than one engaged in the manufacture of firearms or explosives or incendiary devices for lawful purposes, who fabricates, in any manner, any type of an explosive, incendiary or other device designed to be dropped, hurled, or set in place to be exploded by a timing device, shall be guilty of a class B felony.

(1971, P.A. 277.)

Possession of an explosive in violation of Sec. 29-348 and manufacturing a bomb in violation of this section are not the same offense; defendant's action of gluing pennies onto an M-1000 explosive device constituted fabrication. 152 CA 753; judgment reversed on alternate grounds, see 320 C. 589.

Cited. 41 CS 525.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 53-81 to 53-129. Wilful injury to private building. Damage to materials of construction project. Arson, generally. Illegal burning and dumping. Injury to or obstruction of railroads or navigation. Trespass, generally. Other offenses. Sections 53-81 to 53-129, inclusive, are repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 4895, 4897, 8418–8465, 8467; 1949, S. 3278d; 1955, S. 2492d; 1957, P.A. 167; 277; 529, S. 1; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 204; February, 1965, P.A. 184; 1967, P.A. 372, S. 2; 1969, P.A. 438; 828, S. 214; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 129.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1989–2016 · leading case: State v. Saturno, 139 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Saturno, 139 A.3d 629 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 5× “The defendant, Donald Saturno, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional pleas of nolo contendere, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a,1 to one count of manufacturing a bomb in violation of Gen- eral Statutes § 53-80a and…”
Duperry v. Solnit, 803 A.2d 287 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 4× “Dennis O’Toole, an assistant public defender, was appointed to represent the petitioner. O’Toole engaged in plea negotiations with Kevin McMahon, then the assistant state’s attorney assigned to the case, who offered to recommend a sentence of thirty-five years incarceration…”
State v. Chasse, 721 A.2d 1212 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “violation of General Statutes § 53a-lll (a) (l), 1 arson in the second degree in violation of General *349 Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (l),* 2 arson in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-113 (a), 3 attempt to commit first degree assault in violation of General…”
State v. Gauthier, 809 A.2d 1132 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “…in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-lll (a) (1), and illegal bomb manufacturing in violation of General Statutes § 53-80a. On September 20, 1999, the defendant was charged separately with violations of probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. The…”
DuPerry v. Kirk, 563 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Conn. 2008). “§ 53-80a, in connection with a pipe bomb explosion at the Institute of Living in Hartford, Connecticut on March 24, 1988.”
DuPerry v. Kirk, 877 A.2d 928 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “I PRIOR FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The origin of this appeal dates to April, 1988, when the petitioner “was arrested and charged with arson in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-111 and manufacture of bombs in violation of General Statutes § 53-80a in…”
State v. Leary, 590 A.2d 494 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1989). · cites it 3× “6 This act, in fact, solicited the violation of General Statutes § 53-80a, which prohibits a person from fabricating any type of explosive designed to be dropped, hurled or set in place to be exploded by a timing device.”
State v. Jamison, 99 A.3d 1273 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 12× “The defendant, Kenneth Jamison, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a), manufacturing a bomb in viola- tion of General Statutes § 53-80a, and possession of an explosive in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.