Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53a — PENAL CODE · Chapter 951 — Penal Code: Statutory Construction; Principles of Criminal Liability
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-16 (2026)

Justification as defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 53a-17 to 53a-23, inclusive, shall be a defense. Justification as a defense does not include provocation that resulted solely from the discovery of, knowledge about or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted, nonforcible, romantic or sexual advance toward the defendant, or if the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic relationship. As used in this section, “gender identity or expression” means gender identity or expression, as defined in section 53a-181i.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 16; P.A. 19-27, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 19-27 added provisions re discovery, knowledge or potential disclosure of victim's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction as a matter of law when evidence under section is before jury. 178 C. 704. Cited. 188 C. 237; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75.

Cited. 3 CA 289; 8 CA 667; 10 CA 643; Id., 697; 11 CA 665; 17 CA 200; Id., 326; Id., 602; 18 CA 303; 24 CA 195; 31 CA 58; Id., 140; 45 CA 390. State did not fail to disprove defense of justification. 75 CA 80.

Cited. 38 CS 619.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Pranckus, 815 A.2d 678 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pranckus, 815 A.2d 678 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 5× “1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the state did not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his justification defense of use of physical force in defense of a person *82 pursuant to General Statutes §§ 53a-16 2 and 53a-19. 3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
State v. Clark, 826 A.2d 128 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 53a-16. 8 Whereas an affirmative defense requires the defendant to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, a properly raised defense places the burden on the state to disprove the defendant’s claim beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Rivera, 204 A.3d 4 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 9× “Specifically, relying on General Statutes § 53a-16, he contends that defense of property applies "in any prosecution for an offense," including criminal mischief in the third degree.”
State v. Nathan J., 982 A.2d 1067 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 53a-18 (1). General Statutes § 53a-16 dictates that “[i]n any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 53a-17 to 53a-23, inclusive, shall be a defense.”
State v. Johnson, 801 A.2d 890 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “7 In essence, he argues that there was *279 sufficient evidence for him to have asserted successfully the justification that he had the right to use deadly force against the victim in defense of premises under General Statutes §§ 53a-16 8 and 53a-20. 9 We disagree.”
State v. Saunders, 838 A.2d 186 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 53a-16 (“[i]n any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 53a-17 to 53a-23, inclusive, shall be a defense” [emphasis added]).”
State v. Hughes, 341 Conn. 387 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 2× “’’ We assess this evidence, as well as the other evidence adduced by the state, pursuant to the following princi- ples. ‘‘Under our Penal Code, self-defense, as defined in [General Statutes] § 53a-19 (a) .”
State v. Singleton, 974 A.2d 679 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 148 (1984); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-16 (West 2001), comment of the commission to revise the criminal statutes (self-defense statute state [s] [a rule] of law under which the use of force is justified and thus not criminal).”
State v. Grasso, 207 A.3d 33 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 53a-16. Whereas an affirmative defense requires the defendant to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, a properly raised defense places the burden on the state to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Montanez, 894 A.2d 928 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “2 Accessorial Liability The United States Supreme Court has extensively and aptly chronicled the development of the law of accessorial liability.”
State v. Fletcher, 525 A.2d 535 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 53a-16. 8 The legislature has provided that the state bear the burden *708 of proof of disproving the defense.”
State v. Deptula, 623 A.2d 525 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 53a-12 (a). The state contends that we should not entertain this issue because the defendant failed to comply with Practice Book § 852, which provides that this court “shall not be bound to consider error as to the giving of, or the failure to give, an…”
Show all 45 citing cases →
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.