Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed Danielle P.'s convictions for two counts of harassment in the second degree and criminal violation of a protective order. The court held that prosecution and jury instructions under an incorrect statutory revision and subsection were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's harassment convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.
- Whether the defendant's conviction for criminal violation of a protective order was supported by sufficient evidence.
- Whether the defendant was prejudiced because she was charged and tried under the wrong revision and statutory subsection of the harassment statute.
- Whether defects in the protective order rendered it invalid or supplied a defense to the protective-order-violation charge.
- Whether the defendant was entitled to appellate review of her unpreserved and inadequately briefed claims of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and other trial improprieties.
Holdings
- Although the defendant was charged and tried under the 2021 revision of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a), rather than the 2019 version applicable when the charged conduct occurred, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the incorrect revision imposed a more onerous evidentiary burden on the state, the instruction was more favorable to the defendant, and she had fair notice of the charges and alleged conduct.
- The defendant's conviction for harassing telephone calls under subsection (a) (2), rather than subsection (a) (3) of the applicable 2019 version of § 53a-183, did not require reversal because the error was technical rather than fundamental or substantive and did not impair the fairness of the trial.
- The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's two convictions for harassment in the second degree.
- The evidence was sufficient to establish that a protective order had been issued against the defendant and that she violated it by repeatedly contacting V and persons with whom such contact was likely to cause V annoyance or alarm. Defects in the order's identification information did not provide a defense because the validity of the order was not an element of the offense and the defendant violated the order before seeking to have it invalidated.
- The defendant was not entitled to appellate review of her claims that the trial court and prosecutor engaged in misconduct and other improprieties because the claims were unpreserved, conclusory, inadequately briefed, unsupported by legal authority and record references, and unsupported by the record.
Key quotations
“Because the instruction as given was considerably more favorable to the defendant than the correct instruction would have been, and because the defendant otherwise had full and fair notice both of the nature of the charges and the unlawful conduct in which she allegedly engaged, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s erroneous instruction did not prejudice the defendant.” (Part I)
“the validity of the [protective] order is not an element of the crime of criminal violation of a protective order under § 53a-223.” (Part II B)
Factual background
The defendant and V had previously been romantically involved and continued living together for a time after their relationship ended. After V moved into his own apartment and declined the defendant's invitation to remain friends, the defendant threatened to make his life a living hell and thereafter repeatedly contacted him by telephone, text, and mail. The defendant continued contacting V and persons associated with him after the court issued a full no-contact protective order. Evidence included testimony from V and police officers, call-log evidence, police reports, and evidence concerning the protective order.
Procedural history
The state charged the defendant in two cases: one involving two counts of harassment in the second degree and another involving criminal violation of a protective order. The Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number seven, consolidated the cases for trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The court imposed a total effective sentence of eighteen months of incarceration, execution suspended, followed by eighteen months of conditional discharge. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.