Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed Haralambos Sidiropoulos's conviction for breach of the peace in the second degree under General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (5), arising from his repeated use of a racial epithet toward a dental assistant. The court held that, under the circumstances, the language constituted unprotected fighting words likely to provoke an imminent violent response and rejected the defendant's federal and state constitutional speech claims. The court also rejected facial and as-applied vagueness challenges to the statute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction under General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (5) when the defendant's speech was claimed to be protected by the First Amendment.
- Whether article first, §§ 4, 5, and 14, of the Connecticut Constitution affords greater protection to the defendant's offensive speech and precludes its treatment as fighting words.
- Whether General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (5) is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
- Whether General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (5) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct.
Holdings
- The defendant's repeated, loud use of the racial epithet in the circumstances presented constituted unprotected fighting words because the words were likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person in the addressee's position. The speech therefore provided a sufficient basis for conviction under § 53a-181 (a) (5).
- The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that article first, §§ 4, 5, and 14, of the Connecticut Constitution protects the speech at issue more broadly than the First Amendment and therefore protects fighting words.
- The defendant failed to establish under Golding that § 53a-181 (a) (5) is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
- The defendant failed to establish that § 53a-181 (a) (5) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct.
Key quotations
“On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the defendant’s words were likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person under the circumstances in which the words were uttered.”
“Despite the few differences between the present case and Liebenguth, we conclude that the circumstances of the present case similarly warrant a finding that the defendant’s words constituted fighting words.”
Factual background
During an emergency dental appointment, Haralambos Sidiropoulos became angry with dental assistant Natascha Medina over the handling of his eyeglasses. In a small examination room, he repeatedly and loudly called Medina, a multiracial woman, “stupid nigger,” while standing in the only doorway, blocking her exit, leaning toward her, and causing her to become frightened and cry. He continued yelling in the waiting room, prompting other patients to leave their examination rooms and one patient to confront him.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged with two counts of breach of the peace in the second degree and waived a jury trial. The trial court denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal, found him guilty on both counts, and initially imposed sentences on both counts. The court vacated the sentence on one count because the offenses arose from the same conduct and imposed sentence solely on the remaining count. The Appellate Court affirmed.