State v. Jodi D.

• Decision Date: 31 August 2021
• Docket Number: SC 20370
• Citation: 340 Conn. 463,264 A.3d 509
• Parties: STATE v. JODI D.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

340 Conn. 463

264 A.3d 509

STATE

v.JODI D.^*

SC 20370

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 7, 2020

Officially released August 31, 2021^**

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.

McDONALD, J.

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.

"For several years prior to the events at issue, the defendant and the victim did not have a good relationship. The relationship between the defendant and the victim worsened in January, 2015, when the defendant's son, who resided with the defendant, was involved in an altercation with the victim at her residence. According to the victim, during this prior incident, the defendant's son broke down her back door and attacked her, which led to his arrest. Tensions escalated further because the defendant was unhappy with the fact that the victim's dog entered her portion of their shared backyard, and that the victim failed to clean up after her dog. Shortly before the incident underlying this appeal, the defendant erected a small plastic fence to separate her backyard from that of the victim in an attempt to keep the victim's dog away. The fence ran across the backyard and between the two rear doors of the residence. The victim was unhappy about the fence. The victim's mother had asked the victim to look for another place to live, and, by October, 2015, the victim was actively planning to move out of her residence.

"Late in the evening on October 10, 2015, the victim walked out of the front door of her residence. From one of the windows of the defendant's residence, the defendant made a negative comment to the victim, who was talking on her cell phone, but the victim declined to engage the defendant in conversation. At approximately 1:30 a.m., on October 11, 2015, the victim left her residence to walk her dog by means of her back door, which was adjacent to the back door leading into the defendant's residence. By this point in time, the victim had consumed multiple alcoholic beverages. The victim walked her dog in the vicinity of her nearby driveway.

"While the victim was reentering her residence with her dog, she noticed that a light had been turned on inside of the defendant's residence. The victim then stepped back outside, at which time the defendant, who was lurking near the victim's back door, grabbed the victim by the upper part of her body and pulled her over the small plastic fence that was separating their backyards, causing the victim to topple to the ground. A physical struggle between the defendant and the victim ensued, during which the defendant struck the victim repeatedly with a wooden billy club. The victim, while lying on the ground, tried to prevent the defendant from continuing to strike her. The victim grabbed the defendant's hand and pulled her by her hair, causing [the defendant] to fall on top of [the victim]. The victim repeatedly told the defendant to ‘[l]et go’ of the billy club, and the defendant told the victim that she was tired of her, that she hated her, and that she wanted her ‘out of here.’

"Ultimately, the victim restrained the defendant, and the victim asked her what their father, who had died, would say to them if he saw them fighting. The defendant promised not to strike the victim again, at which time the victim released her grasp on the defendant's hair and the defendant stepped away from the victim.

"The defendant picked up the victim's cell phone, which had fallen out of the victim's hands during the altercation, and gave it back to her. The victim tossed aside one of the defendant's garbage pails before making her way back inside. The victim was bleeding from her nose and choking on blood. The victim sustained multiple bruises and lacerations on her face, back, left arm, left shoulder, left leg, and torso. The victim's right eye swelled, and she experienced a great deal of pain, particularly pain that emanated from her jaw. The victim's clothing was stained with blood and dirt, and she was unable immediately to locate either her eyeglasses or a pendant that she had been wearing prior to the altercation.

"After the victim went back inside of her residence, she called the police. Soon thereafter, Naugatuck Police Officer Robert Byrne arrived on the scene. He encountered the defendant and the victim arguing in front of the residence. After he separated the sisters, he met privately with the defendant. The defendant admitted that she had struck the victim with the wooden billy club, which was on her kitchen table but stated that she had acted in self-defense. The defendant also stated that she had begun arguing with the victim after she caught the victim ‘snooping around in the backyard ....’ She stated that the small plastic fence that she had erected to prevent the victim's dog from entering her portion of the backyard was a cause of consternation between her and the victim. The defendant sustained injuries during the incident and claimed to have been ‘strangled’ by the victim, but her injuries were not serious enough to warrant medical treatment. Byrne arrested the defendant on the assault charge, took her into custody, and transported her to police headquarters to complete the booking process.

"Naugatuck Police Officer Shane Andrew Pucci arrived on the scene to provide Byrne with backup assistance. He spoke with the victim privately in her residence and accompanied her to a hospital after emergency medical services arrived on the scene. At the hospital, medical personnel took X-ray images of the victim and treated her injuries. While at the hospital, the victim provided Byrne with an oral statement concerning the incident and her injuries. By 6 a.m. on October 11, 2015, the victim was discharged from the hospital and transported home. Pucci gave the victim a misdemeanor summons for disorderly conduct." State v. Dojnia , supra, 190 Conn. App. at 356–59, 210 A.3d 586.

The defendant was charged with assault of a disabled person in the second degree, assault in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree. "At trial, the victim testified about her extensive medical history. She testified that she had experienced back problems since 2000 and had undergone two...