State v. Briggs, 26052.
Citation | 94 Conn.App. 722,894 A.2d 1008 |
Decision Date | 11 April 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 26052.,26052. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John D. BRIGGS. |
James M. Fox, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, state's attorney, and David J. Smith, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
SCHALLER, DiPENTIMA and HARPER, Js.
The defendant, John D. Briggs, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182(a)(1) and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and (2) he was denied his right to due process as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On January 14, 2004, the defendant telephoned a police dispatcher regarding a dispute concerning rent with his tenant who lived next door. Three state troopers, James Collins, David Abely and David Green, proceeded to the defendant's home to investigate. Green first spoke with the tenant and told him that any dispute was a civil matter that could be resolved through small claims court. The troopers then proceeded to the defendant's house, where they were invited inside. The defendant was sitting at the kitchen table. The defendant was belligerent and interrupted the troopers as they attempted to speak with him. He appeared to be intoxicated.1 The defendant was complaining that the tenants had not paid rent. Because the troopers were unable to communicate with the defendant, they left the house.2
Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, the troopers again were dispatched to the defendant's house. The dispatcher had received numerous 911 telephone calls from the defendant and sent the troopers there to instruct the defendant not to use 911 for nonemergencies. Abely was the first to arrive, and the defendant's wife, Linda Briggs, let him into the house. Abely observed the defendant speaking on the telephone, yelling and screaming. As Abely approached, he asked the defendant to end the telephone call and to discuss the matter. At this point, the defendant attempted to strike Abely in the head or face with the telephone. Abely grabbed the defendant's arm and brought him to the ground, at which time Green, who had arrived, assisted him in restraining the defendant. The two troopers3 struggled with the defendant, who was kicking and attempting to strike them, and eventually restrained him with handcuffs and placed him into a police vehicle.
The defendant was tried and convicted of disorderly conduct and interfering with an officer. The court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of six months incarceration, execution suspended, and one year of probation, plus a fine of $750. This appeal followed.4 Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, the defendant argues that because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the charged crimes, the court improperly denied his motions for a judgment of acquittal.5 We are not persuaded.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Serrano, 91 Conn.App. 227, 241-42, 880 A.2d 183, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 908, 884 A.2d 1029 (2005); see also State v. Farnum, 275 Conn. 26, 32, 878 A.2d 1095 (2005). Constrained by this rigorous standard of review and these legal principles, we address the defendant's claim with respect to each count.
The defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in violation of § 53a-182(a)(1). That statute provides in relevant part: "A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person ... [e]ngages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior ...." We have explained that "the crime of disorderly conduct consists of two elements: (1) that the defendant intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, `inconvenience, annoyance or alarm' and (2) that he did so by engaging `in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior ....'" State v. Leavitt, 8 Conn.App. 517, 522, 513 A.2d 744, cert. denied, 201 Conn. 810, 516 A.2d 886 (1986).
In the present case, both Abely and Green testified that the defendant had appeared frustrated with the situation involving his tenant. They further testified that the defendant had lunged at Abely in an aggressive manner and had attempted to strike him in the head or face with the telephone. The jury was free to credit this testimony6 and find that the defendant engaged in fighting or violent behavior with the intent to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.7 Simply put, reviewing the evidence under our standard of review, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found that the state proved all of the elements of the crime of disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant also was convicted of interfering with an officer in violation of § 53a-167a. Subsection (a) of that statute provides in relevant part: "A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer ... in the performance of such peace officer's ... duties." (Citations omitted.) In re Adalberto S., 27 Conn. App. 49, 55, 604 A.2d 822, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 903, 606 A.2d 1328 (1992).
In the present case, Abely and Green testified that they were wearing uniforms identifying themselves as state police troopers and were present in the defendant's home in response to his 911 telephone calls. Abely indicated that, following the defendant's attempt to strike him with the telephone, he wrestled the defendant to the ground. Abely then attempted to place the defendant under arrest and handcuff him. Green assisted Abely because the defendant continued to struggle by attempting to punch and kick the troopers. Both troopers were on top of the defendant in a combined effort to place the defendant under control. Finally, both troopers testified that placing an individual under arrest was part of their official duties as state police troopers.
As we previously explained, the jury was free to credit the testimony of Abely and Green. Looking at the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that the jury could have found that the state proved all of the elements of the crime of interfering with a police officer beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's claim of insufficiency of the evidence is, therefore, without merit.
The defendant next claims that he was denied his right to due process as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, he argues that the prosecutor made an improper comment during rebuttal argument regarding the audio recording of the 911 telephone calls made by the defendant that had been introduced into evidence as a full exhibit. We disagree.
The following additional facts are necessary for our resolution of the defendant's claim. Linda Briggs testified at trial. Her version of the events of January 14, 2004, varied greatly from the troopers' testimony.8 She indicated that one of the tenants had attempted to break into her house while the defendant was calling the police for the first time. According to Linda Briggs, one of her children, who was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lamantia
...State v. Wearing , 98 Conn. App. 350, 355, 908 A.2d 1134 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 905, 916 A.2d 47 (2007). In State v. Briggs , 94 Conn. App. 722, 728, 894 A.2d 1008, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 912, 899 A.2d 39 (2006), we noted that this statute, which is broad in scope, proscribes beha......
-
State v. Parnoff
...by engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Briggs, 94 Conn.App. 722, 726–27, 894 A.2d 1008, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 912, 899 A.2d 39 (2006). Our Supreme Court has held that verbal statements, unaccompanied by p......
-
State v. Laurence, AC 36567
...engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Briggs, 94 Conn. App. 722, 726-27, 894 A.2d 1008, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 912, 899 A.2d 39 (2006). Our Supreme Court has held that verbal statements, unaccompanied by......
-
State v. Ragin
...431 n. 3, 853 A.2d 607 (2004) (same); see also State v. Scott, 83 Conn.App. 724, 727, 851 A.2d 353 (2004) (same)." State v. Briggs, 94 Conn.App. 722, 725 n. 4, 894 A.2d 1008, cert. denied, 278 Conn. 912, 899 A.2d 39 2. We note that despite the defendant's failure to preserve his claims by f......