State v. Snyder, 16898
Decision Date | 04 August 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 16898,16898 |
Citation | 717 A.2d 240,49 Conn.App. 617 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Van SNYDER. |
John M. Gesmonde, Hamden, for appellant (defendant).
Rita M. Shair, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, State's Attorney, and, on the brief, Robin Lipsky, Assistant State's Attorney, and Holly Trexler, Legal Intern, for appellee (State).
Before LAVERY, SCHALLER and SPEAR, JJ.
The defendant, Van Snyder, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following the denial of his motion to dismiss and the entry of a nolo contendere plea, 1 of harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a)(2). 2 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss because § 53a-183 (a)(2) is overbroad, unconstitutionally vague on its face, and unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant.
In addition to harassment in the second degree, the defendant was charged with disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182 (a)(2). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss all counts arguing that the statutes defining the two offenses were facially vague and overbroad and, in the alternative, that the informations failed to charge an offense. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the disorderly conduct counts on the basis of State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 640 A.2d 986 (1994), and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the harassment counts on the basis that the informations failed to charge an offense. The state was granted permission to appeal from the trial court's decision dismissing the harassment counts, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-96.
This court reversed the trial court's decision. State v. Snyder, 40 Conn.App. 544, 672 A.2d 535, cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921, 676 A.2d 1375 (1996). The issue on appeal was "whether § 53a-183 (a)(2) requires the state to prove that a defendant, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, directly communicated with that person, or whether the state may also prove a violation of that statute where it demonstrates that a defendant, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, communicated with a third party." Id., at 550-51, 672 A.2d 535. This court concluded that the statute "is not ambiguous and that it applies to a person who, with the intent to harass a victim, communicates with a third party by mail in an effort to cause such harassment"; id., at 551, 672 A.2d 535; and that the trial court improperly interpreted the statute. 3
On remand, the defendant reclaimed his motion to dismiss based on constitutional grounds. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a plea of nolo contendere conditioned on the right to appeal from the adverse determination on the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.
This court in State v. Snyder, supra, 40 Conn.App. 544, 672 A.2d 535, relied on the following facts. "In April, 1993, Joseph Sullivan, the acting superintendent of public schools in Waterbury, and Charles Joy, the assistant superintendent for instruction, were jointly involved in the suspension of the defendant from duty for one week. The defendant was the principal of Crosby High School.
The defendant argues that § 53a-183 (a)(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad. We disagree.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 30 Conn.App. 224, 229-30, 619 A.2d 1146, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 913, 623 A.2d 1024 (1993). In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), the Supreme Court stated "where conduct and not merely speech is involved, we believe that the overbreadth of a statute must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
In State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689, 389 A.2d 1270 (1978), the Appellate Session of the Superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galloway v. State, 21
......Snyder, 49 Conn.App. 617, 717 A.2d 240 (1998) the Appellate Court of Connecticut concluded that that state's harassment statute was not unconstitutionally ......
-
Scott v. The State Of Tex., PD-1069-09
...34 Id., 365 Md. at 632-33, 781 A.2d at 870-71. 35 Id., 365 Md. at 641-42, 781 A.2d at 876 (quoting Connecticut v. Snyder, 49 Conn.App. 617, 624, 717 A.2d 240, 243-44 (Conn.App.Ct.1998) (in turn quoting Connecticut v. Anonymous, 34 Conn.Supp. 689, 696, 389 A.2d 1270, 1273-74 (Conn.Super.Ct.1......
-
State v. Buhl, 35606.
...State v. Snyder, 40 Conn.App. 544, 551–52, 672 A.2d 535, cert. denied, 237 Conn. 921, 676 A.2d 1375 (1996), on appeal after remand, 49 Conn.App. 617, 717 A.2d 240 (1998). In the present case, the defendant was alleged, inter alia, to have harassed M and P by sending an overnight letter to P......
- State v. Rodriguez, 16218