State v. Snyder, 16898

Decision Date04 August 1998
Docket NumberNo. 16898,16898
Citation717 A.2d 240,49 Conn.App. 617
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE 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.

LAVERY, Judge.

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.

"Commencing in July, 1993, Sullivan, Joy, and Foster Crawford, the assistant superintendent for special education, began receiving by mail magazine subscriptions to which they had not subscribed and packages of merchandise and services that they had not ordered. For example, Joy received dozens of video cassettes, audio discs, music cassettes, and collector plates and cards. Joy estimated that as of October, 1993, he had received over 500 pieces of mail and merchandise valued at approximately $5620.

"All three of the victims had been billed for these unsolicited items and had received second and third notices from billing services. In these past due notices, the billing agencies threatened that they would take aggressive collection action if the outstanding bills were not paid. The notices caused the victims to believe that such action would have an adverse effect on their credit standings.

"Additionally, Sullivan, Joy and Crawford had spent a considerable amount of time making telephone calls and mailing numerous forms and letters in attempts to cancel unwanted magazine subscriptions, and to stem the tide of unordered and unwanted merchandise and services. Joy changed his telephone number in an effort to stop solicitors from calling at all hours of the day and night.

"On September 8, 1993, Joy attended a meeting in the defendant's office at Crosby High School. Joy wanted to take notes at the meeting and picked up a note pad from the defendant's desk. Joy noticed that the pad had an imprint of his name and home address. On September 15, 1993, Joy again attended a meeting at Crosby High School and, while he was using the telephone in the defendant's office, he saw ten or twelve subscription forms protruding from the defendant's desk drawer.

"On September 21, 1993, Joy received a telephone call from a person claiming that Joy was registered for a particular seminar. Joy asked the caller to send him the original registration card and the envelope in which it had been mailed, and the caller did so. When Joy received the registration materials, he compared the handwriting on the materials with the handwriting on certain documents that the defendant had prepared and signed. Joy concluded that the handwriting on the registration materials was very similar to that of the defendant. Joy also recognized that the postage on the registration envelope was from a postage meter at 236 Grand Street, the building where Joy's office was located.

"On October 8, 1993, Joy intercepted the mail from the Crosby High School mail bag and noticed a subscription card with his name and address listed as the subscriber. Joy asked a secretary to examine the contents of the mail bag, and the secretary found six pieces of mail similar to the one that Joy had discovered.

"The false subscription cards and known samples of the defendant's handwriting were submitted to the state forensic laboratory for handwriting comparison. The examiner concluded that the cards and the known samples were written by the defendant.

"On October 21, 1993, pursuant to a warrant, the police searched the defendant's office at Crosby High School. The items seized included thirty-one assorted mail orders and requests for magazine subscriptions and a box containing over 510 homemade address labels. Among the addresses printed on the labels were those of Joy's residence, Sullivan's residence and Crawford's residence and office. Over 300 of the labels contained the residential address of Guy DiBiasio, a former superintendent of public schools in Waterbury. The police also found three order forms containing the Waterbury address of Robert Rousseau, Karen Rousseau and James Wigglesworth.

"During the search, the defendant told the police that he had been subjected to harassment by the school officials who had suspended him, and, that for this reason, he was ordering subscriptions to be sent to the officials. The defendant also stated that he was having problems with a student, and that he had a confrontation with the student's father. Because the defendant was upset with this student and his father, he began ordering magazine subscriptions to be sent to the student's home.

"Approximately one month after the search of the defendant's office, Robert Rousseau and Karen Rousseau reported to the police that they had been involved in a verbal confrontation with the defendant and that, thereafter, they had begun to receive numerous items of unsolicited mail. Karen Rousseau stated that the argument with the defendant pertained to Wigglesworth, her son. According to Karen Rousseau, one unwanted item sent to her home was a gift allegedly from Joy to Wigglesworth, an item that Joy claims he did not send.

"Also subsequent to the search of the defendant's office, DiBiasio filed a complaint with the police, claiming that he had been receiving hundreds of unsolicited mail subscriptions at his residence. DiBiasio reported that while he was superintendent, he had disciplined the defendant for a violation of school policies." Id., at 546-49, 672 A.2d 535.

I

The defendant argues that § 53a-183 (a)(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad. We disagree.

"The essence of an overbreadth challenge is that a statute that proscribes certain conduct, even though it may have some permissible applications, sweeps within its proscription conduct protected by the first amendment. Secretary of State v. J.H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 968, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984); Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 798-801, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984); Husti v. Zuckerman Property Enterprises, Ltd., 199 Conn. 575, 587, 508 A.2d 735, appeal dismissed, 479 U.S. 802, 107 S.Ct. 43, 93 L.Ed.2d 6(1986). Overbroad statutes, like vague ones, inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct.... A party has standing to raise an overbreadth claim, however, only if there [is] a realistic danger that the statute will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court...." (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
11 cases
  • Galloway v. State, 21
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 19, 2001
    ......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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • October 6, 2010
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 12, 2014
    ...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
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 4, 1998
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT