State v. Payne
Decision Date | 06 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15395,15395 |
Citation | 695 A.2d 525,240 Conn. 766 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut, v. Frederick PAYNE, Sr. |
John W. Watson, Senior Assistant Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Marjorie Allen Dauster, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Attorney, Elpedio Vitale, Assistant State's Attorney, and Zachary R. Osborne, Legal Intern, for appellee (state).
Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BERDON, NORCOTT, MCDONALD and PETERS, JJ.
The defendant, Frederick Payne, Sr., was convicted after a jury trial of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 53-21 1 and misdemeanor coercion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-192. 2 The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, and we granted the defendant's petition for certification limited to review of the following questions: 3 State v. Payne, 236 Conn. 911, 673 A.2d 112 (1996). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The essential facts underlying the jury's verdict are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. "On February 4, 1993, at 5 p.m., the defendant approached three boys, R, age eight, his brother A, age five, and their friend L, age ten, in a dark hallway of a vacant apartment building in a New Haven housing project. Standing in the doorway so as to prevent the boys from leaving, the defendant ordered the boys to urinate into a cup. 4 The defendant told R that he was going to kill him if he did not comply. After all three boys urinated, the defendant gave them $1 and allowed them to leave. R and A ran home crying and told their mother, T, what had occurred.
State v. Payne, 40 Conn.App. 1, 3-4, 669 A.2d 582 (1995). Additional findings of the Appellate Court will be provided where necessary.
The defendant was prosecuted and convicted under the first part of § 53-21, 5 which provides that "[a]ny person who wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that its life or limb is endangered, or its health is likely to be injured, or its morals likely to be impaired ... shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years or both." In instructing the jury, the trial court defined health as "a state of being hale, sound or whole in body, mind or soul, or well- being." 6 The defendant now contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the word "health," as used in the first part of § 53-21, includes a child's mental health. We disagree.
Our resolution of the defendant's claim begins with an analysis of § 53-21. In this endeavor, (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Metz, 230 Conn. 400, 409, 645 A.2d 965 (1994). The general purpose of § 53-21 is to protect the physical and psychological well-being of children from the potentially harmful conduct of adults. See State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54, 64, 428 A.2d 322 (1980); State v. Dennis, 150 Conn. 245, 250, 188 A.2d 65 (1963); State v. Palangio, 24 Conn.App. 300, 305, 588 A.2d 644, cert. denied, 218 Conn. 911, 591 A.2d 813 (1991). Section 53-21 does not define the term "health," and the legislative history of the statute does not provide any insight into the legislature's intent in using the term. "If a statute or regulation does not sufficiently define a term, it is appropriate to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary." State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 809, 640 A.2d 986 (1994). The Appellate Court noted that Webster's Third International Collegiate Dictionary defines health as (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, supra, 40 Conn.App. at 9, 669 A.2d 582. We agree with the Appellate Court that both the common and the legal definitions of health include mental health and, therefore, that the legislature intended health to include mental health in the context of § 53-21.
Moreover, " '[n]o part of a legislative enactment is to be treated as insignificant or unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase ... [so that] no word [or phrase] in a statute is to be treated as superfluous.' " State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 528, 631 A.2d 1149 (1993). The Appellate Court emphasized that the first part of § 53-21 "distinguish[es] three alternative classes of potential injury: endangering life or limb, likely injury to health, and impairment of morals." State v. Payne, supra, 40 Conn.App. at 8, 669 A.2d 582. We agree that, because the phrase "life or limb is endangered" indicates the intent of the legislature to protect children from conduct creating a risk of physical injury, and because the phrase "morals likely to be impaired" expresses the legislature's intent to prohibit conduct threatening the morality of children, the phrase "health is likely to be injured" must include the risk of injury to the mental health of a child in order to avoid redundancy within the first part of the statute.
The defendant, however, argues that we should adopt a more limited construction of the term "health" under the first part of § 53-21. He posits that this court's ruling in State v. Schriver, 207 Conn. 456, 542 A.2d 686 (1988), precludes us from finding that the first part of § 53-21 extends to conduct creating a risk of injury solely to mental health.
In Schriver, the defendant grabbed a thirteen year old girl around the waist and uttered a sexual remark to her. He was charged and convicted under the second part of § 53-21 for doing an "act likely to impair the health or morals of [a] child." Id., at 458, 542 A.2d 686. In reversing the defendant's conviction, this court held, inter alia, that the combined judicial gloss of previous cases construing § 53-21 limited the second part of § 53-21 strictly to prosecution for those acts likely to impair the physical health of a child. Id., at 466-68, 542 A.2d 686. In deciding the present case, the Appellate Court ruled that Schriver did not support the defendant's claim because (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, supra, 40 Conn.App. at 5-6, 669 A.2d 582. The Appellate Court thus concluded that Schriver did not provide an authoritative judicial gloss limiting the meaning of health under the first part of § 53-21 to physical health. Id., at 6, 669 A.2d 582.
Our review of the grammatical structure, the legislative history and the legislative purpose of § 53-21 leads us to agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Court that Schriver is legally distinguishable from the present case. Id. Section 53-21 is divided into two distinct parts and separated by the disjunctive. State v. Dennis, supra, 150 Conn. at 248, 188 A.2d 65. The legislative history of § 53-21 supports the conception of § 53-21 as comprising two distinct parts. The statute, as it currently exists, was derived from two separate legislative enactments. State v. Dennis, supra, at 249, 188 A.2d 65. Cases construing § 53-21 have emphasized this clear separation between...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hodge
...the term extreme, "it is appropriate to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary." State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771, 695 A.2d 525 (1997). The definition that the defendant challenges is derived from the dictionary, which defines extreme as "existing in the......
-
State v. Padua
...is to protect the physical and psychological well-being of children from the potentially harmful conduct of adults." State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771, 695 A.2d 525 (1997). Our case law has interpreted ? 53-21(1) as comprising two distinct parts and criminalizing "two general types of beha......
-
Ramos v. Vernon
...engage in a facial vagueness analysis outside the context of the first amendment, we need not do so in this case"); State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 777, 695 A.2d 525 (1997) (implying in dicta that facial challenge is appropriate when any fundamental constitutional right is challenged on vagu......
-
State v. Spillane, (AC 17194)
...to look to the common understanding of the term as expressed in a dictionary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771, 698 A.2d 525 (1997). 15. "An element [of our offense] is a fact that must be proved by the prosecution in order to sustain a conviction, tha......