State v. Buhl
138 A.3d 868
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Defendant Teri Buhl, a journalist, was accused of posting a high‑school student M’s private diary entries on a Facebook account "Tasha Moore" and of anonymously mailing copies of those diary entries to M’s father P. The diary entries described underage drinking and sexual activity.
- Police traced the Facebook account's IP address to the defendant (investigative steps discussed but direct IP testimony was withdrawn). Defendant admitted sending the anonymous mailing but denied creating the Facebook profile.
- Trial court convicted Buhl of breach of the peace in the second degree (publicly exhibiting offensive matter with intent to annoy/alarm) and harassment in the second degree (anonymous mailing with intent to harass/annoy/alarm). Sentence: nine months, execution suspended after 30 days, one year probation.
- The Appellate Court reversed the breach‑of‑the‑peace conviction (finding insufficient proof the Facebook posts were "publicly exhibited") and affirmed the harassment conviction based on the anonymous mailing; it also declined to address the defendant's constitutional claims as inadequately briefed.
- The Supreme Court (Robinson, J.) granted certified appeals by both parties, held that (1) the Facebook posts could be found "publicly exhibited" based on lay testimony, (2) there was sufficient evidence that Buhl authored the posts and intended to annoy/alarm M, (3) the harassment conviction based on the anonymous mailing was supported, and (4) the Appellate Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to review inadequately briefed constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Buhl's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Facebook posts were "publicly exhibited" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑181(a)(4) | M’s testimony that she (not a friend) could view the profile plus the printed profile ("Add as Friend" button) sufficed; no expert required | Trial court’s unfamiliarity with Facebook meant expert testimony was needed; M’s testimony was contradictory | Posts could be found publicly exhibited; expert testimony not required; Appellate Court erred |
| Whether evidence tied Buhl to the "Tasha Moore" Facebook profile | Circumstantial evidence (access to home, possession of diary entries, timing, motive, evasive conduct) sufficed | No direct proof (no IP testimony admitted); circumstantial evidence insufficient beyond reasonable doubt | Circumstantial evidence sufficient; trial court reasonably could find Buhl authored posts |
| Whether intent to "inconvenience, annoy or alarm" M met for breach of the peace | Public posting of private, sexual diary entries naming M and including photo showed predominant intent to vex/provoke/anxiety | M was not invited to view posts; posting was mere venting, not intent to produce vexation/alarm | Intent established beyond reasonable doubt by content, targeting, and effect on M |
| Whether evidence supported harassment conviction based on anonymous mailing (§ 53a‑183(a)(2)) | Anonymous delivery, content (private sexual diary entries), timing, and delayed admission showed intent to harass/annoy/alarm P and M | Mailing could reflect concern for M; not intended to harass | Harassment conviction affirmed — evidence supported intent to harass/annoy/alarm |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (discussing sufficiency standard and construing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Drupals, 306 Conn. 149 (standard for reviewing inferences from evidence)
- State v. Wolff, 237 Conn. 633 (defining mental‑state requirement for breach of the peace)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard that evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Altajir, 303 Conn. 304 (caution re: dynamic nature of Facebook evidence and time‑specific proof)
- State v. Moulton, 310 Conn. 337 (clarifying harassment statute can encompass speech as well as conduct)