State v. Boyer, s. CR

Decision Date01 October 1963
Docket NumberNos. CR,s. CR
Citation198 A.2d 222,2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 288
CourtCircuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Francis BOYER. STATE of Connecticut v. Stanley DEXTER. 12-3715, CR 12-3713.

Robert C. DuBeau and Robert D. King, Rockville, for appellants (defendants).

E. George Gorsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

KOSICKI, Judge.

The defendants were tried together on separate informations containing identical charges and, though no stipulation was filed, have jointly presented their appeals from the judgments rendered. The defendant Boyer was accused of having committed a breach of the peace on or about December 20, 1962, and the defendant Dexter was charged with committing a breach of the peace on or about December 23. No bill of particulars was requested or filed. The finding, which is not subject to correction, discloses the following: Edmond Dupont, aged sixty-nine years, lived alone on the first floor of a two-family house in Ellington. The second floor was occupied by his daughter, her husband Leonard Miller and their children. The telephones, one in each apartment, were so connected that calls and rings were received simultaneously. The defendant Boyer resided with his family about three streets away, and the defendant Dexter and his family lived about 200 feet from Dupont's house. Boyer and Dexter were not on friendly terms with Dupont. On December 20, Boyer over the telephone threatened Dupont, saying that Dupont was going to die on Christmas eve and that his house would be burned down. Boyer also used vile, abusive and indecent language. These violent and offensive words were heard on the upstairs phone by Dupont's daughter and her husband. About an hour later, Dupont and the Millers heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot near the house. They saw Boyer standing about twenty feet from the house near a stone wall. He then walked away in the direction of the Dexter house.

On December 23, Dexter telephoned Dupont from Palmer, Massachusetts, saying that Dupont was going to die and that 'they' were going to burn his house down. He used indecent and offensive epithets toward Dupont. The Millers overheard this threatening and abusive language on their telephone. The state police were notified immediately. Mrs. Miller left the house and spent the night at the home of her nephew. As a consequence of these acts, Dupont and the Millers became excited, nervous, upset, angry and frightened.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the utterance of the described language over a telephone constitutes a violation of § 53-174. We have held that telephone calls of a threatening, abusive and violent nature were a breach of the peace proscribed by the statute. State v. Protopapas, 23 Conn.Sup. 471, 184 A.2d 558. In that case, however, the sole error assigned was the claimed failure of the presiding judge to define to the jury the word 'peace' as meaning 'public peace' and, therefore, to be distinguished from the peace of the individual. The present appeal is based on the proposition that there can be no breach of the peace through a threatening or abusive communication over a telephone and, further, that at common law a breach of the peace by threat cannot be committed unless the threat is accompanied by acts showing a formed will to execute the threat. In support of this proposition the defendant cites People on Complaint of White v. Monnier, 280 N.Y. 77, 19 N.E.2d note, 48 A.L.R. 83, 85; and 8 Am.Jur., Breach of Peace, § 8. We are asked to overrule the Protopapas case, supra, and adopt the rule stated in State v. Robinson, 23 Conn.Sup. 430, 184 A.2d 188. The latter case concerned a violation of § 53-175, penalizing offensive or disorderly conduct, and it was there held that the misconduct prohibited by the statute must occur in a public place and that an offensive telephone conversation, occurring while the complaining witness and the accused were in their own homes, did not constitute disorderly conduct.

Disorderly conduct was not an offense at common law; it is punishable by statute as an offense separate and distinct from breach of the peace, and the place of commission of the offensive act is an element of the crime. State v. Robinson, supra. Our breach of the peace statute is not merely a codification of the common law; it includes offenses which were not criminal at common law and among them is the utterance of threatening, abusive and indecent language against another. See 3 Blackstone, Commentaries, c. 8 (Chase, 4th Ed. p. 675); 4 id., c. 11 (Chase, 4th Ed. pp. 912-918). From the earliest times threats were by our statute included among other acts of breach of the peace. In 1865, the use of scurrilous, abusive or indecent language was added to the prohibited acts. Rev. 1866, p. 264, § 123.

We find no authority for the claim that to constitute a threat under our statute there must be immediate menace of violence or acts showing a present ability and will to execute the threat. That would liken the threat to an assault, which is and always has been a separate offense under our statute and distinct from a threat. A threat imports the expectation of bodily harm, thereby inducing fear and apprehension in the person threatened. A threat, unlike an assault, is not limited by time of distance. It is equally vicious whether made vis-a-vis or over a wall or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Anonymous (1971-4)
    • United States
    • Connecticut Circuit Court
    • December 24, 1970
    ...statute is not merely a codification of the common law; it includes offenses which were not criminal at common law. State v. Boyer, 2 Conn.Cir. 288, 291, 198 A.2d 222. Section 53-174 does not define the crime of breach of the peace but merely specifies certain ways of committing it. Id., 29......
  • State v. Snead
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • June 4, 1996
    ...recent return to her home, not only had the present ability but also the opportunity to carry out his threat. In State v. Boyer, 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 288, 198 A.2d 222 (App.Div.1963), the court considered whether a threat made over the telephone constituted a violation of General Statutes (Rev. t......
  • State v. MacGregor
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • November 29, 1968
    ...intrusion upon his tranquility. Upon this foundation rests the existence of an orderly and civilized society. State v. Boyer, 2 Conn.Cir. 288, 294, 198 A.2d 222. The acts of the defendant constituted a breach of the peace within the fair intendment of the statute. State v. Cantwell, supra; ......
  • Robinson v. Bradley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • June 20, 1969
    ...of the threat. See, e. g., Landry v. Daley, supra at 962; State of Maine v. Cashman, 217 A.2d 28 (Me.1966); State of Connecticut v. Boyer, 2 Conn.Cir. 288, 198 A.2d 222 (Conn.1963).9 We read the "just cause" proviso of section 6 as incorporating the elements of the "threats" language of sec......
  • 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