State v. Lamantia, 336 Conn. 623

Summary

This document is a dissenting opinion in a Connecticut Supreme Court case involving a witness-tampering conviction under General Statutes § 53a-151 (a). Justice Ecker argues that the evidence showed, at most, an intent to influence a witness during a police investigation, which does not constitute an official proceeding under Connecticut law, and would reverse the conviction. The dissent also criticizes the state's failure to identify the specific false statement and official proceeding at issue.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, General Statutes § 53a-151 (a) criminalizes conduct intended to influence a person to make a false sworn statement, withhold testimony, or otherwise engage in proscribed conduct in an official proceeding; it does not criminalize efforts directed solely at influencing a person during a police investigation.
2. The evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant intended to induce Rajewski to testify falsely in a future official proceeding; it showed, at most, an intent to influence his statement as a suspect in an ongoing police investigation.
3. The witness-tampering statute must be construed strictly against the state and may not be extended by judicial implication to impose criminal liability for conduct the legislature omitted from the statutory text.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant intended to induce Rajewski to testify falsely or withhold testimony in a future official proceeding, as required by General Statutes § 53a-151 (a).
2. Whether a police investigation qualifies as an official proceeding under Connecticut's witness-tampering statute.
3. Whether the defendant's knowledge of a police investigation, without evidence that she believed a future official proceeding was probable and intended to influence testimony in that proceeding, satisfies the statute's mens rea requirement.

Disposition

reversed