It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution for criminal trespass that: (1) The building involved in the offense was abandoned; or (2) the premises, at the time of the entry or remaining, were open to the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or (3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain, or that he was licensed to do so.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-110
Affirmative defenses to criminal trespass
Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case State v. Ward (2004)
Most recently applied in State v. Stanko (December 2019)
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 112.)
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Official source: Connecticut General Assembly. Reproduced from public-domain Connecticut statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.