State v. Jodi D.
Citation | 340 Conn. 463,264 A.3d 509 |
Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
Docket Number | SC 20370 |
Parties | STATE v. JODI D. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Megan L. Wade, assigned counsel, Hartford, with whom was James P. Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Brett R. Aiello, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Karen Diebolt, former assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Naomi T. Fetterman filed a brief for the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
The issues before us in this appeal are (1) whether the term "physically disabled," as used in General Statutes § 53a-60b (a) (1) and defined by General Statutes § 1-1f (b), is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the conduct of the defendant, Jodi D., who was convicted of assault on a victim who suffered from fibromyalgia
and other physical ailments, (2) if the statutes are not unconstitutionally vague, whether they are unconstitutionally overinclusive, and (3) whether there was insufficient evidence to establish that the victim suffered from a physical disability within the meaning of § 53a-60b (a) (1).
The defendant was charged with assault of a disabled person in the second degree in violation of § 53a-60b (a) (1), assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (1) and reckless endangerment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-64 (a) after an altercation with the victim, the defendant's sister, during which the defendant struck the victim with a wooden billy club. The jury found the defendant guilty of assault of a disabled person in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree and not guilty of assault in the third degree, and the trial court rendered judgment of conviction. Thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that " § 53a-60b (a) (1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct" and that "the evidence did not support a finding that the victim was physically disabled ...." (Footnote omitted.) State v. Dojnia , 190 Conn. App. 353, 355–56, 210 A.3d 586 (2019). The Appellate Court rejected these claims and affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 386, 210 A.3d 586. We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court, limited to the following issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that ... §§ 1-1f (b) and 53a-60b (a) (1) were not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant?" And (2) "[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the evidence the state presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was ‘physically disabled’ under the governing statutes?" State v. Dojnia , 333 Conn. 914, 215 A.3d 1211 (2019). The defendant also claims on appeal that, even if the statutes are not unconstitutionally vague, § 53a-60b (a) (1) is unconstitutional because there is no rational nexus between the broad scope of the statute and the legislature's narrow purpose in enacting it.1 Although we reject the defendant's claim that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague, we conclude that they are unconstitutionally overinclusive and lack any rational basis as applied to assaults on persons whose physical disabilities neither diminish their ability to defend themselves from assault nor make them particularly vulnerable to injury. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case for a new trial.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found. "In October, 2015, the defendant and the victim, who are sisters, resided in separate units of a duplex style home in Naugatuck that was owned by their mother. For years prior to the events at issue, the victim suffered from chronic pain and was physically limited in performing everyday tasks, such as standing, walking, and climbing stairs.
State v. Dojnia , supra, 190 Conn. App. at 356–59, 210 A.3d 586.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Douglas C.
... ... Vumback , 263 Conn. 215, 221, 819 A.2d 250 (2003) ; because this claim is premised on an alleged infringement of the defendant's constitutional rights, our review is plenary. See, e.g., State v. Jodi D ., 340 Conn. 463, 476, 264 A.3d 509 (2021) (constitutional issue presents legal question subject to de novo review); see also United States v. Newell , 658 F.3d 1, 20 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 955, 132 S. Ct. 430, 181 L. Ed. 2d 280 (2011), and cert. denied sub nom. Parisi v ... ...
- State v. Turner
-
In re Aurora H.
... ... inadequate brief. We conclude that the claim is reviewable ... under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 ... A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 ... Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 ... evaluate their substance rather than to be bound by imprecise ... form. See, e.g., State v. Jodi D., 340 Conn. 463, ... 475 n.6, 264 A.3d 509 (2021) ("failure [by the ... appellant] to label her argument using the correct technical ... ...