State v. Davis, 160 Conn.App. 251

Background

On Nov. 20, 2010 defendant drank heavily while boating, later drove, and collided with another vehicle; his blood alcohol content was 0.165 at the hospital.
After the crash defendant offered the other driver (Jarmoszko) “a couple hundred bucks” to avoid police involvement; Jarmoszko declined and called police.
Officer Magrey found defendant hiding in the boat and placed him under arrest after defendant became belligerent; defendant later admitted the offer was intended to keep police out.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of operating with elevated BAC (§ 14-227a), bribery of a witness (§ 53a-149), breach of the peace, and interfering with a police officer; a bench trial on a part B information found him a third-time offender under § 14-227a(g)(3).
On appeal defendant claimed (1) insufficient evidence for bribery and for the third-offender finding, and (2) that § 53a-149 is unconstitutionally vague as applied. The court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for bribery (§ 53a-149)	Evidence supported that defendant offered money to keep Jarmoszko from contacting police and thus intended to influence conduct relating to an official proceeding	Offer was a civil settlement for vehicle damage; no official proceeding existed or was imminent	Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer intent to influence witness/conduct and that a future official proceeding was possible under statute
Requirement that an "official proceeding" exist when offer made	Statute defines "official proceeding" and "witness" to include proceedings and witnesses that "may be held" or "may be summoned"; no contemporaneous proceeding required	Statute should be read to apply only after an official proceeding is instituted	Rejected — legislative definitions plainly include future proceedings and potential witnesses
Vagueness challenge to § 53a-149 as applied	Statute gives fair warning; defendant’s conduct (DUI + attempt to keep police out) would alert a person of ordinary intelligence that bribing a potential witness is prohibited; specific intent element narrows scope	Broad definitions of "witness" and "official proceeding" render statute vague and do not give fair notice	Rejected — statute not vague as applied; specific intent requirement further limits reach
Sufficiency of evidence for third-time offender designation (§ 14-227a(g)(3))	Certified prior judgments and mittimus with matching name, DOB, address and supporting documents identified defendant as same person	Prior conviction records insufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt (dates variances, possible identification gaps)	Affirmed — certified judgments and accompanying identifiers sufficiently established defendant’s prior convictions; 2007 judgment incorporated evidence of earlier conviction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Allan, 311 Conn. 1 (Connecticut 2014) (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
State v. Stephen J. R., 309 Conn. 586 (Connecticut 2013) (standard of review on sufficiency claims)
State v. Delgado, 247 Conn. 616 (Connecticut 1999) (intent is question of fact for jury)
Paul Bailey’s, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 167 Conn. 493 (Connecticut 1975) (intent may be inferred from conduct)
State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458 (Connecticut 1977) (bribery committed upon making offer regardless of acceptance)
State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (Connecticut 2010) (void-for-vagueness principles; specific intent narrows statute)
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1952) (specific intent requirement mitigates vagueness)
State v. Gordon, 84 Conn. App. 519 (Conn. App. 2004) (use of certified prior judgment as proof of prior conviction)
State v. Tenay, 156 Conn. App. 792 (Conn. App. 2015) (proof of prior convictions by certified judgments)
State v. Windley, 95 Conn. App. 62 (Conn. App. 2006) (identifying indicators for prior-conviction proof)
State v. Gallichio, 71 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2002) (identical names alone insufficient to prove identity)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mottolese, 261 Conn. 521 (Connecticut 2002) (distinguishing civil settlement offers from criminal bribery)
State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507 (Connecticut 1985) (precise date in indictment not essential when offense proved within limitation period)