Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-17 (2026)

Conduct required or authorized by law or judicial decree

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless inconsistent with any provision of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with any other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when such conduct is required or authorized by a provision of law or by a judicial decree, including but not limited to (1) laws defining duties and functions of public servants, (2) laws defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions, (3) laws governing the execution of legal process, (4) laws governing the military services and the conduct of war, and (5) judgments and orders of courts.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 17.)

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. 197 C. 588; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75; Id., 322. Evidence that defendant sought to introduce concerning a dispute over tribal leadership and defendant's alleged responsibilities as a tribal official was relevant to defendant's defense of justification under section and, therefore, was improperly excluded. 263 C. 602.

Cited. 8 CA 667; 18 CA 303; 21 CA 138; 23 CA 615; 24 CA 195; 45 CA 390.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: State v. Velky, 821 A.2d 752 (Conn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Velky, 821 A.2d 752 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 8× “First, the defendant claims that the court improperly excluded evidence of the dispute over tribal leadership and his alleged responsibilities as a tribal official that he asserts was relevant to a defense of justification under General Statutes § 53a-17 11 and to his state of…”

State v. Bailey, 551 A.2d 1206 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 2× “That statute provides: “Unless inconsistent with any provision of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with any other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when such conduct is required or authorized by a…”

State v. Messler, 562 A.2d 1138 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 2× “…criminal purpose; § 53a-13, insanity; § 53a-14, duress; § 53a-15, entrapment; § 53a-16, justification, as defined in General Statutes §§ 53a-17 through 53a-23; §§ 53a-16a and 53a-16b, use of firearms; and § 53a-48, renunciation of criminal purpose in a conspiracy charge. The…”

State v. Rosado, 425 A.2d 108 (Conn. 1979). “…purpose; § 53a-10; insanity; § 53a-13; duress; § 53a-14; entrapment; § 53a-15; justification; § 53a-16, as defined in §§ 53a-17 through 53a-23; use of firearms; §§ 53a-16a and 53a-16b; and renunciation of criminal purpose in a conspiracy charge; § 53a-48. We hold .therefore…”

State v. Rouleau, 528 A.2d 343 (Conn. 1987). “The trial court’s instructions included the following: “Now, we also have a statute that provides that in any prosecution for an offense, it shall be a defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was coerced by the use of threatened imminent use of…”

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.