(a) A person is guilty of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or pregnant person or a person with intellectual disability in the first degree, when such person commits assault in the first degree under section
53a-59(a)(2),
53a-59(a)(3) or
53a-59(a)(5) and (1) the victim of such assault has attained at least sixty years of age, is blind or physically disabled, as defined in section
1-1f, or is pregnant, or (2) the victim of such assault is a person with intellectual disability, as defined in section
1-1g, and the actor is not a person with intellectual disability.
(b) No person shall be found guilty of assault in the first degree and assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or pregnant person or a person with intellectual disability in the first degree upon the same incident of assault but such person may be charged and prosecuted for both such offenses upon the same information.
(c) In any prosecution for an offense under this section based on the victim being pregnant it shall be an affirmative defense that the actor, at the time such actor engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, did not know the victim was pregnant. In any prosecution for an offense under this section based on the victim being a person with intellectual disability, it shall be an affirmative defense that the actor, at the time such actor engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, did not know the victim was a person with intellectual disability.
(d) Assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or pregnant person or a person with intellectual disability in the first degree is a class B felony and any person found guilty under this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.
(P.A. 77-422, S. 1; P.A. 80-442, S. 17, 28; July Sp. Sess. P.A. 94-2, S. 4; P.A. 99-122, S. 1; 99-186, S. 14; P.A. 11-129, S. 11.)
History: P.A. 80-442 added proviso in Subsec. (c) requiring five years' imprisonment for persons found guilty under section provisions, effective July 1, 1981; July Sp. Sess. P.A. 94-2 amended Subsec. (a) to add reference to Sec. 53a-59(a)(5); P.A. 99-122 changed the name of the offense from “assault of a victim sixty or older in the first degree” to “assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or mentally retarded person in the first degree”, where appearing, amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. (2) to include within the offense an assault where the victim is a person with mental retardation and the actor is not a person with mental retardation, and added new Subsec. (c) to establish an affirmative defense in a prosecution based on the victim being a person with mental retardation that the actor did not know the victim was a person with mental retardation, relettering former Subsec. (c) as Subsec. (d); P.A. 99-186 changed the name of the offense from “assault of a victim sixty or older in the first degree” to “assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or pregnant person in the first degree” where appearing, amended Subsec. (a) to include within the offense an assault where the victim is pregnant and added new Subsec. (c) to establish an affirmative defense in a prosecution based on the victim being pregnant that the actor did not know the victim was pregnant, relettering former Subsec. (c) as Subsec. (d); (Revisor's note: In 2005, the Revisors recodified new Subsec. (c) to reflect the separate affirmative defenses established by P.A. 99-122 and P.A. 99-186); P.A. 11-129 substituted “person with intellectual disability” for “mentally retarded person” and “person with mental retardation” and made conforming changes.
See Secs. 53a-321 to 53a-323, inclusive, re abuse of elderly, blind or disabled person or person with intellectual disability.
Cited. 180 C. 557; 207 C. 412; 211 C. 1; 216 C. 282; 230 C. 608.
Cited. 5 CA 590; 14 CA 1; 20 CA 467; Id., 521; 35 CA 609.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 235 C. 502.
Cited. 28 CA 402; 40 CA 387. Subdivs. (1) and (5) do not proscribe the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. 98 CA 85.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
State v. Kirk R., 857 A.2d 908 (Conn. 2004).
State v. Kirk R., 857 A.2d 908 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 42× “, General Statutes §§ 53a-59a, 53a-60b, 53a-60c and 53a-61a (mandatory minimum sentence for assault if victim was at least sixty years of age).”
State v. Baccala, 163 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 53a-59a(a)(1) (creating separate offense for assault in first degree against physically disabled person); a question arises whether the possibility that an average person in Freeman's position would strike a person with such impairments for leveling verbal…”
State v. Brown, 668 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The majority cites as an example General Statutes § 53a-59a (a), which provides: “A person is guilty of assault of a victim sixty or older in the first degree, when he commits assault in the first degree under section 53a-59 (a) (2), 53a-59 (a) (3) or 53a-59 (a) (5) and the…”
State v. Bjorklund, 830 A.2d 1141 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 7× “The defendant, David Bjorklund, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1), assault of a victim sixty years of…”
Simms v. Warden, State Prison, 646 A.2d 126 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 53a-59a provides in relevant part: “assault of a victim SIXTY OR OLDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE: CLASS B FELONY: FIVE YEARS not suspendable.”
State v. Evans, 189 A.3d 1184 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 53a-59a (d) (providing in relevant part that "[a]ny person found guilty under this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court"); General Statutes § 53a-70a (a)…”
State v. Courchesne, 998 A.2d 1 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “03-21 (designating assault of pregnant woman that results in termination of her pregnancy as class A felony) with General Statutes § 53a-59a (designating assault of pregnant woman in first degree as class B felony).”
State v. Mooney, 767 A.2d 770 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 5× “peals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, 1 robbeiy in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (l), 2 burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Kirsch, 820 A.2d 236 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 53a-55a (a) (“[n]o person shall be found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm upon the same transaction”); General Statutes § 53a-59a (b) (“[n]o person shall be found guilty of assault in the first…”
State v. Miranda, 878 A.2d 1118 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Today, a majority of the court concludes in a per curiam opinion that, despite the legislature’s failure to act in response to two en banc decisions by this court, our interpretation of § 53a-59a was incorrect. A plurality of the court, as expressed in a concurring opinion,…”
Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Okeke, 189 A.3d 158 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Michael thereafter was arrested and charged with assault of an elderly person in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59a and disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182.”
State v. Denby, 35 Conn. App. 609 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 5× “The relationship between General Statutes §§ 21a-278a (b) and 21a-278 is similar to that between General Statutes §§ 53a-59a 6 and 53a-59.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59a(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Baccala, 163 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2017).
“, General Statutes § 53a-59a(a)(1) (creating separate offense for assault in first degree against physically disabled person); a question arises whether the possibility that an average person in Freeman's position would strike a person with such impairments for leveling verbal…”
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.