State v. Billings
| Decision Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 44149 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Blair BILLINGS |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Alison L. Fonseca, certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant).
Meryl R. Gersz, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Anne F. Mahoney, state's attorney, and Andrew Slitt and Jennifer Barry, assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
Alvord, Elgo and Clark, Js.
The defendant, Blair Billings, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal violation of a restraining order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223b (a) (2), stalking in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2018) § 53a-181d (b) (1),1 and harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 53a-183 (a) (2).2 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence social media posts and messages that the state failed to properly authenticate, (2) the state committed prosecutorial impropriety by failing to comply with certain discovery requirements and by making improper statements during its closing arguments, (3) the court abused its discretion when it declined to sanction the state for violating a court order regarding discovery, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for stalking and harassment because they were predicated on speech protected by the first amendment.3 Because we agree with the defendant with respect to his first amendment claim, we reverse the judgment of conviction of harassment in the second degree and stalking in the second degree. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
The following facts, which reasonably could have been found by the jury, and procedural history inform our review of the defendant's claims. The victim, A,4 lived in Putnam with her husband and worked as a karate instructor at a karate school in Danielson (karate school). She and her husband have six children, some of whom, at the time of the trial, still lived at home. In September, 2017, A attended a party hosted by the owner of the karate school. At the party, A met the defendant for the first time and the two "hit it off." Later that evening, the two talked by themselves "for quite a while just about a lot of personal stuff and general stuff, things."
While at the party, A and the defendant added one another as friends on Facebook. A few days later, A messaged the defendant on the platform. The two also started following each other on Instagram. Over the next few weeks, A and the defendant began communicating frequently and eventually met for drinks. Thereafter, their relationship "became more personal" and A eventually told the defendant that she "wanted to have a relationship, an affair" with him. In early November, 2017, A and the defendant's relationship turned physical and the two began having sexual intercourse and also exchanged intimate photographs of each other. During that same time, A encouraged the defendant to become a student at the karate school, which he did.
In either December, 2017, or January, 2018, A ended the relationship. The defendant became "angry and combative," which "terrified" A. Despite ending the relationship, A continued to communicate with the defendant on a daily basis, stating that she "was trying to calm him down and be amicable" because they were adults. She also met with him at a laundromat to give him a set of nunchucks5 with which he could practice his karate.6 A then saw the defendant one final time at an event at the karate school.
In February, 2018, A unfriended the defendant on Facebook, which left him unable to see her Facebook page or to message her on that platform. The defendant then began messaging her on Instagram, where the two still followed each other. Thereafter, the defendant resorted to posting photographs of A and private details about their affair and about members of her family on social media.
In light of the defendant's actions, A obtained an ex parte restraining order against the defendant on April 2, 2018, which was served on the defendant on April 3, 2018. Importantly, for purposes of this appeal, the defendant's conduct prior to the issuance of the restraining order does not form the basis of any of the defendant's convictions.
On or about April 7, 2018, a few days after the defendant was served with the ex parte restraining order, James Walters, a friend of A, sent A screenshots of a Facebook conversation that the defendant had on his own Facebook page with Tracey Hart Field, another Facebook user unknown to A (April 7, 2018 Facebook conversation). A previously had asked Walters to monitor several of the defendant's social media accounts. Walters checked the defendant's accounts frequently for posts that might interest A, took screenshots of them, and sent the screenshots to A. The screenshots of the April 7, 2018 Facebook conversation read as follows:7
After receiving the screenshots from Walters, A vomited, had a panic attack, and "was completely and totally terrified that [her] entire life was going to be ruined on social media." A few weeks later, on May 12, 2018, A went to the police and provided a formal written statement. Trooper Howard Smith of the Connecticut State Police was assigned to investigate her allegations and confirmed that she had a valid restraining order against the defendant at the time of some of the Facebook posts.
On the sole basis of the aforementioned April 7, 2018 Facebook conversation, the state charged the defendant with criminal violation of a restraining order in violation of § 53a-223b, stalking in the second degree in violation of § 53a-181d, and harassment in the second degree in violation of § 53a-183.9
A five day jury trial was held in November, 2019. Walters and A both testified. The state also admitted into evidence numerous exhibits that depicted posts and messages from the defendant's social media accounts. In addition to exhibit 11, which contained the screenshots of the April 7, 2018 Facebook conversation that formed the basis of the defendant's convictions, the state was permitted to introduce prior social media posts of the defendant under the uncharged misconduct rule.10 Those included, among others:
• Plaintiff's exhibit 1, which was a screenshot of a Twitter post containing a picture of A's face and captioned:
• Plaintiff's exhibit 4, which was a screenshot of an Instagram post containing a photograph of A's property and captioned: "Pictures from today's ride."
• Plaintiff's exhibit 5, which was a screenshot of a Facebook post that referred to A as "a cheater and pathological li[a]r." The post also included a screenshot of an Instagram post that the defendant had allegedly made, which included a picture of A and was captioned:
• Plaintiff's exhibit 6, which was a screenshot of a Facebook post...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.C. v. W.J.
...engaging in any non-speech conduct, the exception for speech integral to criminal conduct shouldn't apply"). See also State v. Billings, 217 Conn.App. 1, 28-30 (2022), and cases cited ("for the speech integral to criminal conduct exception to apply, the speech in question must, at a minimum......
-
State v. Billings
...deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 217 Conn. App. 1, 287 A.3d 146, is denied. ROBINSON, C. J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this ...