Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman
Decision Date | 13 March 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 18721.,18721. |
Citation | Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman, 38 A.3d 84, 303 Conn. 800 (Conn. 2012) |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION v. William B. COLEMAN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William E. Murray, Hartford, with whom were David McGuire and, on the brief, Aubrey E. Ruta, Hartford, and Michael T. Grant, for the appellant(defendant).
Lynn D. Wittenbrink, assistant attorney general, with whom were Ann E. Lynch, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, Neil Parille, assistant attorney general, George Jepsen, attorney general, and Richard Blumenthal, former attorney general, for the appellee(plaintiff).
Martha F. Davis and Hope R. Metcalf filed a brief for Professors of Law, Human Rights and Bioethics as amici curiae.
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH and HARPER, Js.
Broadly stated, the issue raised in this appeal 1 is whether the state of Connecticut may force-feed an inmate who is engaged in a hunger strike as a form of protest.The defendant, William B. Coleman, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiff, Theresa C. Lantz, the former commissioner of correction (commissioner), 2 for a permanent injunction permitting the department of correction (department) to forcibly restrain and feed the defendant to prevent life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition.On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court improperly determined that: (1)the state's interests outweigh the defendant's common-law right to bodily integrity; (2) the forcible administration of artificial nutrition and hydration to the defendant does not violate his right to free speech and privacy under the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution; and (3) international law does not prohibit the force-feeding of the defendant.We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history.The defendant currently is serving a fifteen year sentence, execution suspended after eight years, with a maximum discharge date of December 30, 2012, at the McDougall–Walker correctional institution following his convictions on charges pertaining to his relationship with his ex-wife.On September 17, 2007, approximately two weeks after the Appellate Court issued its decision affirming his convictions, the defendant began a hunger strike.At that time, he weighed approximately 237 pounds.On January 9, 2008, by which time the defendant's weight had dropped to 162 pounds, the commissioner sought both a temporary and a permanent injunction authorizing the department to restrain and force-feed the defendant if it became medically necessary given the health risks associated with hunger strikes.In response, the defendant asserted several special defenses, including the common law, constitutional and international law grounds raised in this appeal.3On January 23, 2008, the trial court granted the temporary injunction, with a trial set to follow on the permanent injunction.
Following a trial to the court, the trial court granted the commissioner's application for a permanent injunction.In its memorandum of decision, the trial court found the following facts.“[The defendant] has been determined to be mentally competent every time he has been evaluated during his incarceration.[He] has never been diagnosed as suicidal.He is presently engaged in a protest, taking the form of a hunger strike ... protesting what he claims to be a broken family and criminal judicial system that led to his wrongful conviction.[The defendant] maintains that he is innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted.[He] also insists that his conviction is a form of ongoing abuse to his two sons ... with whom he has had no contact since his conviction in 2005, and who are in the sole custody of his ex-wife.Through his protest, [the defendant] wants to raise awareness of what he perceives to be the misuse and abuse of the criminal and family judicial system; in particular, the assertion of false criminal allegations in the context of divorce proceedings.
The trial court also noted the following events that had ensued subsequent to its order granting the temporary injunction.Throughout the course of his hunger strike, the defendant's voluntary ingestion of nutrients and liquids has varied: at some points, the defendant has voluntarily consumed ice chips, milk, orange juice, coffee and tea, or a liquid nutritional supplement; at other points, he has refused to ingest food or liquids in any form.Approximately one year after his hunger strike began, the defendant stated that the strike “need[ed] to be cranked up again,” at which point he ceased all oral intake, including fluids.As a result of increasing signs of dehydration, on September 22, 2008, when the defendant's weight was just 139 pounds, Edward Blanchette, a physician and the clinical director of the department, determined that forced intravenous hydration was necessary to prevent death or irreversible harm.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Feehan v. Marcone
... ... 491 marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Coleman , 303 Conn. 800, 810, 38 A.3d 84 (2012), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1235, 133 S.Ct. 1593, 185 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.
... ... Therefore, we decline to address this issue. See Commissioner of Correction v. Coleman, 303 Conn. 800, 832, 38 A.3d 84 (2012) (declining to review issue where in addition to the fact ... ...
-
State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391.
... ... Commissioner of Correction v. Coleman, 303 Conn. 800, 82627, 38 A.3d 84 (2012) (overriding need to secure safety, security, discipline ... ...
-
Aamer ex rel. Aamer v. Obama
... ... See Freeman, 441 F.3d at 546; Commissioner of Correction v. Coleman, 303 Conn. 800, 38 A.3d 84, 95–97 (2012) (collecting cases). Petitioners point to nothing ... ...
-
Judicial Bypass and Parental Rights After Dobbs.
...94, 111-12 (D. Mass. 2019). (231.) Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). (232.) See, e.g., Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman, 38 A.3d 84, 94 (Conn. 2012) (recognizing an incarcerated person's qualified common-law right to bodily integrity); People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 967 (......
-
FORCE-FEEDING PRETRIAL DETAINEES: A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.
...of Corr., 180 P.3d 1257, 1266 (Wash. 2008). (289.) See, e.g., id. at 1274 (Sanders, J., dissenting); see also Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman, 38 A.3d 84, 110 (Conn. 2012) (citing McNabb, 180 P.3d at 1268 (Sanders, J., dissenting) among (290.) See Azadeh Shahshahani & Priya Arvind Patel, Fro......