Efstathiadis v. Holder
119 A.3d 522
Conn.2015Background
- Petitioner Charalambos Efstathiadis, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2005 to four counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-73a(a)(2).
- DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2009 claiming Efstathiadis was deportable for crimes involving moral turpitude (two or more such crimes).
- An immigration judge found § 53a-73a(a)(2) was not a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute did not clearly require the actor to know the victim did not consent.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed, relying alternatively on (1) the sexual-contact definition in § 53a-65(3) suggesting evil intent and (2) the underlying conviction facts.
- The Second Circuit certified two questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199b(d): (1) whether § 53a-73a(a)(2) is strict liability as to lack of consent, and (2) if not, what mens rea is required for the lack-of-consent element.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court analyzed statutory text, related statutes (notably § 53a-70), legislative purpose, and precedent to decide those certified questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 53a-73a(a)(2) strict liability as to lack of consent? | §53a-73a(a)(2) contains no express mens rea for lack of consent, so it is strict liability. | Sexual assault statutes should be read together; prior case law (Smith) rejects strict liability for consent. | No — §53a-73a(a)(2) is not strict liability. |
| If not strict liability, what mens rea applies to lack of consent? | Criminal negligence should apply. | Criminal negligence is appropriate (paralleling §53a-70 and Smith). | Criminal negligence — failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk (gross deviation from reasonable care). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 210 Conn. 132 (Conn. 1989) (treats first-degree sexual assault as not strict liability; consent assessed by reasonable manifestations)
- State v. T.R.D., 286 Conn. 191 (Conn. 2008) (statutory interpretation requires examining legislative intent and the nature of evils to be avoided)
- State v. Hill, 256 Conn. 412 (Conn. 2001) (statutory interpretation of mens rea is for the court)
- In re Jusstice W., 308 Conn. 652 (Conn. 2013) (related statutory provisions should be read harmoniously)
- Efstathiadis v. Holder, 752 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2014) (certified questions to Conn. Supreme Court regarding mens rea for lack of consent)
- Mendez v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2008) (crime involving moral turpitude hinges on offender's mental state)
- Gill v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 420 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2005) (focus on mental state when assessing moral turpitude)