Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Seeley; Westbrook; Palmer
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- jury verdict affirmed on appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
Defendant's conviction for harassment in the second degree and criminal violation of a protective order was affirmed on appeal despite being prosecuted under the wrong statutory revision, as the error was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury instruction was actually more favorable to the defendant.
Excerpt
Convicted, after a jury trial, of harassment in the second degree and criminal violation of a protective order, the defendant appealed. She claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions because the state failed to establish that the victim, V, had received harassing and alarming phone calls, texts and mailings, and that she was responsible for any such harassing communications. Held: This court concluded that, although the defendant was prosecuted under the wrong revision of the statute (§ 53a-183 (a)) proscribing harassment in the second degree, that impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The revision of the statute ((Rev. to 2021) § 53a-183 (a), as amended by Public Acts 2021, No. 21-56, § 5) under which the defendant was prosecuted imposed a more onerous evidentiary burden on the state, in that it required proof that the defendant's conduct had caused terror or intimidation, whereas the applicable revision of the statute ((Rev. to 2019) § 53a-183 (a)) required communication with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm, and, as the trial court's jury instruction under the incorrect revision of the statute was con- siderably more favorable to the defendant than the correct jury instruction would have been, and because the defendant had full and fair notice of the nature of the charges and her allegedly unlawful conduct, this court was satisfied that the erroneous jury instruction did not prejudice the defendant. The defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction of harassment in the second degree was without merit, as it was reasonable and logical for the jury to find, given the sheer volume of her unwelcome and incessant contacts, in which she threatened to "ruin" V's life and make it "a living hell," that she repeatedly had contacted V for the purpose of harassing and causing him alarm and that she made those contacts in a manner likely to cause him such alarm. The evidence was suffici
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.