Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-2 (2026)
Application and scope
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of this title shall apply to any offense defined in this title or the general statutes, unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires, and committed on or after October 1, 1971, and to any defense to prosecution for such an offense.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 2.)
Cited. 192 C. 154; 201 C. 505; 207 C. 456; 211 C. 258; 228 C. 758.
Cited. 2 CA 204; 11 CA 665; 29 CA 591.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003).
State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003). “In fact, General Statutes § 53a-2 66 dictates the opposite conclusion.”
State v. James G., 844 A.2d 810 (Conn. 2004). “Accordingly, we looked to the definition of “intimate parts” contained in § 53a-65 (8), as directed by General Statutes § 53a-2, 30 for guidance.”
McCoy v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 12 A.3d 948 (Conn. 2011). “A review of the Penal Code and other related statutory provisions reveals that the legislature consistently has used the phrase "motor vehicle violation" in a manner requiring a broader interpretation than the Penal Code's definition of "violation.”
State v. Harrison, 638 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1994). “The defendant urges the court to follow the direction of General Statutes § 53a-2 5 and to apply the definition of offense contained in General Statutes § 53a-24 (a). 6 *763 He argues that, because § 54-lf does not expressly provide an alternate definition, we are required to…”
State v. Andresen, 773 A.2d 328 (Conn. 2001). “*329 The defendant’s reliance on General Statutes § 53a-2 is misplaced. That section applies generally to offenses defined in the Penal Code or offenses defined elsewhere in the General Statutes, “unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires .”
State v. Marra, 387 A.2d 550 (Conn. 1978). “See General Statutes § 53a-2. [2] Section 53-63, repealed effective October 1, 1971.”
State v. Nathan J., 982 A.2d 1067 (Conn. 2009). “Although the state does not challenge this reading of these statutes, it relies on General Statutes § 53a-2, 9 which dictates that the provisions of the Penal Code, including the parental justification defense, “shall apply to any offense defined in [the Penal Code] or the…”
State v. Holloway, 528 A.2d 1176 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). “” The penal code’s definitions, as provided in General Statutes § 53a-2, apply to all offenses of the code and to offenses defined in the general statutes “unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires .”
State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686 (Conn. 1988). “See General Statutes § 53a-2. There is likewise a similarity between the Pickering test and the definition of “sexual contact” in General Statutes § 53a-65 (3).”
State v. Erzen, 617 A.2d 177 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). “We review prior case law to determine whether the defendant had fair warning that his acts violated § 53-21; we look to the penal code for guidance because General Statutes § 53a-2 provides that “[t]he provisions of this title shall apply to any offense defined in this title or…”
State v. Perruccio, 471 A.2d 632 (Conn. 1984). “Section 53-21 does not specify the “acts” or “situations” deemed “likely to impair the morals of [a] child”; hence, we look to the penal code for guidance since § 53a-2 states that “the provisions of this title shall apply to any offense defined in this title or the general…”
State v. Ramos, 860 A.2d 249 (Conn. 2004). “We determined that although General Statutes § 53a-2 “states that the provisions of the penal code ‘shall apply to any offense defined in this title or the general statutes, unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires’ .”
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.