State v. Boyd, 169 A.3d 842

Incident at ~2:00 a.m. outside the Moose Lodge bar in South Norwalk: defendant (Boyd) argued with patron/employee Alisabeth Rojas while escorted out by a bouncer (Mayberry); officer Kruger observed and intervened.
In the parking area, witnesses (Kruger, Mayberry) testified Boyd came within a few feet of Rojas and either swung a fist at the back of her head or shoved her; Rojas ducked, lost balance, and fell to a knee.
Kruger and Mayberry restrained Boyd; he resisted, was taken to the ground, and both Kruger and Officer Tejada assisted in handcuffing him; Boyd later claimed Rojas stabbed him, but officers found no wound or blood.
Boyd was charged with disorderly conduct (§ 53a-182), interfering with an officer (§ 53a-167a), and two counts of threatening; jury convicted on disorderly conduct and interfering with an officer, acquitted on threats; sentenced to 15 months.
On appeal Boyd argued (1) insufficient evidence for disorderly conduct because he merely raised/pushed his hand defensively; and (2) trial court failed to give requested jury definitions for interfering with an officer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Boyd)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for disorderly conduct (intent + violent/threatening behavior)	Witnesses described aggressive swing or shove; circumstances and conduct show intent to cause alarm/annoyance	He only raised a hand/pushed defensively as Rojas came toward him; no specific intent to cause alarm	Affirmed — evidence sufficient; jury credited witnesses over defendant and could infer intent under §53a-182(a)(1)
Omission of definitions/instructions for elements of interfering with an officer	Court’s principal charge included the requested definitions and intent language; supplemental clarifications did not supplant principal charge	Court failed to instruct on definitions of "obstructs/resists/hinders/endangers" and on intent language from his request	Affirmed — no instructional error; charge as a whole (principal + supplemental) adequately covered requested language and law

State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2015) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Briggs, 94 Conn. App. 722 (Conn. App. 2006) (elements of disorderly conduct defined)
State v. Andriulaitis, 169 Conn. App. 286 (Conn. App. 2016) (interpretation of §53a-182 mens rea)
State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (Conn. 1994) (definition of intent under disorderly conduct statute)
State v. Senquiz, 68 Conn. App. 571 (Conn. App. 2002) (jury’s credibility determinations and weighing conflicting testimony)
State v. Jason B., 111 Conn. App. 359 (Conn. App. 2008) (deference to jury credibility findings)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (standards for evaluating jury instructions and requests to charge)
State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399 (Conn. 2010) (preservation of instructional claims by request to charge or exception)
State v. Johnson, 165 Conn. App. 255 (Conn. App. 2016) (specificity required to preserve jury instruction claims)