State v. Buhl
| Decision Date | 12 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 35606.,35606. |
| Citation | 152 Conn.App. 140,100 A.3d 6 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Teri A. BUHL. |
152 Conn.App. 140
100 A.3d 6
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Teri A. BUHL.
No. 35606.
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued April 15, 2014.
Decided Aug. 12, 2014.
Stephan E. Seeger, Stamford, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Jonathan M. Sousa, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state's attorney, and Donna M. Krusinski, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
BEACH, BEAR and PELLEGRINO, Js.*
Opinion
BEAR, J.
The defendant, Teri A. Buhl, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a trial to the court, of harassment
in the second degree in violation
of General Statutes § 53a–183 (a)(2) and breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–181 (a)(4).1 On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction of either crime. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which reasonably could have been found by the court, and procedural history inform our review. In June, 2010, the defendant, a journalist, was involved in a romantic relationship with P, and she frequently visited his home, where P's daughter M also resided.2 M kept some diary entries of her personal thoughts and feelings in a drawer in her nightstand. On June 23, 2010, seventeen year old M attended her high school graduation and had dinner at a friend's house. When she later went home to change her clothes before going out with friends, M received a telephone call from a friend who told her that he had seen a “fake Facebook profile”3 of someone using the name “Tasha Moore” that
had information about M on it. M went onto Facebook, viewed Moore's profile through her friend's Facebook page, and saw the following message on Moore's page: “[M] ... gets so drunk
at parties that boys know she is an easy hook up. In April at [A's] house party she gave [O] a blow job and then threw up. [O] calls her that deep throat JAP. [M] told her friends that ... she thought giving the best BJ would help make [O] her boyfriend. You wonder why some ... [high school] girls never learn how to behave around boys.” M was quite upset “because the person that they had identified was not even—was not the right person and that was all false information,” and she was concerned that others would see the posting.
Moore's Facebook profile also contained photographs of some of M's handwritten diary entries, which contained personal information about M's attendance at a party where she performed fellatio on a boy she liked. M also noticed that Moore had “friended” several of M's friends and classmates, who, because of their status as “friends” of Moore, could view Moore's profile. See footnote 3 of this opinion. Distraught, M did not
go out with her friends that night, but stayed at home, where she received additional telephone calls from friends who had seen Moore's profile. M sent a message via Facebook to Moore, asking her to take down the posts and warning her that, if she did not take them down, M would go to the police. When the posts remained, M went to the police on June 24, 2010. M also telephoned her parents and told them what had happened. Later, M returned to the police station with her father, P, who learned the details of what had happened directly from M.
Later in the day, on June 24, 2010, P received a sealed envelope, sent by overnight mail, containing copies of M's handwritten diary pages and an unsigned letter that provided: “[P], I am a casual friend of your daughter [M]. I told my mom about the story you'll read in this letter that [M] shared with us this spring and she said I should share it with you. [O] the guy [M] hooked up with, has been bragging to my boyfriend and other senior guys about what [M] did with him that night. He's not really a nice guy. She just gets so drunk so fast sometimes I don't know if she even remembers hooking up with guys. I know she wants [O] to be her boyfriend but he hardly talked to her after that night. She only showed a few of us these letters when she got back from vacation. Please don't tell her one of her friends wrote you but my Mom said it is best if you read them.” M and P returned to the police department with these materials.
On June 25, 2010, P had dinner with the defendant and told her what had happened. On June 27, 2010, the defendant told P that it was she who had sent him the letter after meeting with an anonymous girl who had the materials in her possession. The defendant stated that she convinced the girl to allow her to turn the materials over to P along with a cover letter explaining the circumstances. The defendant would not disclose
the girl's name to P because she stated that she had promised to keep the source confidential. The defendant told P that she would contact the investigating police department. P returned to the police station a few days later and met with Officer Daniel Gulino. Gulino wanted the names of everyone who had access to P's home because there was no sign of forced entry and someone had obtained pages of M's diary, which was kept in her nightstand. P also turned over the materials sent by the defendant and told Gulino that the defendant would be contacting him.
After the defendant attempted to contact Gulino by e-mail and by telephone, Gulino made contact with the defendant by telephone. The defendant told Gulino that
she was doing an investigative report on underage drinking. Gulino asked the defendant if she was “Tasha Moore,” and the defendant responded: “I'm Teri Buhl, not Tasha Moore.” Gulino later turned his investigation over to Sergeant Carol Ogrinc. Ogrinc then served on Facebook an ex parte order for the disclosure of the internet protocol (IP) address associated with the profile of Tasha Moore. Ogrinc also served on Cablevision an ex parte order for the name of the person associated with the IP address she had been investigating, and Cablevision reported that this IP address was connected to the defendant.4
On October 21, 2010, the defendant was arrested and charged with harassment in the second degree, breach of the peace in the second degree, and interfering with an officer. After a trial to the court, she was convicted
of the harassment and breach of the peace charges. Following the denial of her postverdict motions, the court sentenced the defendant on the harassment conviction to three months incarceration, execution suspended after fifteen days, followed by one year of probation, and on the breach of peace conviction to six months incarceration, execution suspended after fifteen days, followed by one year of probation, such sentences to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of nine months incarceration, execution suspended after thirty days, followed by one year of probation, the maximum amount of probation allowed. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I
The defendant claims that “[t]he trial court erred in finding [her] guilty of harassment ... where the evidence at trial was not sufficient for [a] finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without the trier of fact shifting the burden of proof on the defendant and/or impermissibly impinging on her constitutional rights.” The state argues that, on the basis of the evidence at trial, the court “reasonably concluded that the evidence established all of the elements of harassment in the second degree, including identification ... [and that] the trial court's finding of guilt did not violate the first amendment because it was based on the defendant's physical action and not on the content of her communication, and because the ‘journalist privilege’ does not exist in this context.” We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction of harassment in the second degree.
The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim employs a two part test. “First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the
facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [trial judge] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the [trial judge] if there is sufficient evidence to support the ... verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Niemeyer, 258 Conn. 510,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buhl
...for breach of the peace in the second degree and affirmed her conviction for harassment in the second degree. State v. Buhl, 152 Conn. App. 140, 161, 100 A.3d 6 (2014). In its appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to supp......
-
State v. Nowacki
...was a communication. Rather, the communication must be made in a form likely to be viewed as annoying or alarming. See State v. Buhl, 152 Conn.App. 140, 152–53, 100 A.3d 6 (evidence sufficient to support harassment conviction when defendant sent anonymous letter as opposed to alternative fo......
-
Sublet v. State
...interstate communications containing any threat to injure a person by posting threatening comments on Facebook); State v. Buhl, 152 Conn.App. 140, 100 A.3d 6, 8–9 (2014) (Facebook entries received in evidence to show the defendant had harassed the victim); Moore v. State, 295 Ga. 709, 763 S......
-
State v. Buhl
...for breach of the peace in the second degree and affirmed her conviction for harassment in the second degree. State v. Buhl, 152 Conn.App. 140, 161, 100 A.3d 6 (2014). In its appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suppo......
-
2014 Connecticut Appellate Review
...419, 101 A.3d 355, cert, granted, 314 Conn. 949, 103 A.3d 977 (2014). [97] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-84b (2013). [98] 152 Conn.App. 141, 100 A.3d 6, cert, granted, 315 Conn. 942, 103 A.3d 164 (2014). [99] 150 Conn.App. 514, 90 A.3d 383, cert, granted, 314 Conn. 909, 100 A.3d 402 (2014). [100] 1......
-
Straight to the Source: Shielding a Journalist's Metadata with Federal Legislation.
...(167.) State v. Buhl, No. S20NCR10127478S, 2012 WL 4902683, at *7 n.5 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 2012), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 100 A.3d 6 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 138 A.3d 868 (Conn. (168.) Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act, S......