State v. Dickman, 146 Conn. App. 17

Background

Defendant Priscilla C. Dickman, a union steward at UConn Health Center, was charged with four counts of second‑degree forgery for allegedly submitting physician-signed or -purported medical/leave forms altered to support absences and workers’ compensation or leave benefits.
HR staff discovered near‑identical doctor’s notes and other forms with altered dates and suspected overlays; physician Abeles disavowed authorship/signature on several documents; physician Tortland initially indicated possible "cut and paste."
The state sent the documents to the physicians for verification; Abeles later emailed approval (then recanted at trial), and Tortland’s statements evolved after a 2005 meeting with campus police and a 2011 interview with prosecutors.
At trial the state introduced the questioned documents; defendant claimed they did not qualify as instruments affecting legal rights under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑139(a)(1).
Jury convicted on all four counts; court sentenced defendant to four years (execution suspended) and five years probation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether documents fall within § 53a‑139(a)(1) (instruments affecting legal rights)	Documents (doctor’s notes, worker status reports, fitness for duty, medical certificate) were used to obtain/authorize leave and workers’ compensation and therefore affect legal rights/interests	Documents are merely medical/administrative, not of the same kind as deeds/contracts; ejusdem generis and rule of lenity bar second‑degree forgery application	Affirmed: jury reasonably could find documents affect legal rights/interests (entitle or condition benefits/leave); convictions upheld
Hearsay / Business records exception	Documents are hospital/state records routinely kept and admissible under business‑records hearsay exception	Foundation for business‑records exception was inadequate; admission prejudiced defense	Affirmed: documents were not offered for truth of their substantive medical assertions but as instruments/comparators in forgery case, so hearsay rule/business‑records analysis inapplicable
Brady / disclosure of exculpatory evidence (Tortland interview)	Late nondisclosure of Tortland’s exculpatory statements to prosecutors deprived defense of fair trial; prejudice presumed or cannot be shown by defense	Interview materials were available to defense pretrial or during trial; defendant had opportunity to cross‑examine and suffered no prejudice	Affirmed: no Brady violation—evidence was available at trial, defense cross‑examined Tortland, and defendant failed to show prejudice
Rule of lenity / vagueness as applied	Ambiguities between second and third‑degree forgery render § 53a‑139(a)(1) vague as applied; criminal statute should be construed narrowly	Statute gives fair notice; difference between 2nd and 3rd degree is whether instrument affects legal right/interest; no unconstitutional vagueness	Affirmed: statutory language is sufficiently definite; any ambiguity would at most affect degree, not void statute

Key Cases Cited

State v. DeCaro, 252 Conn. 229 (explains sufficiency/circumstantial evidence review)
State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622 (discusses vagueness, rule of lenity, and fair‑notice doctrine)
State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (void‑for‑vagueness purpose to ensure fair warning)
State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Brady materiality and prejudice framework)
State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441 (Bagley materiality test for undisclosed evidence)
State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (standards for hearsay exceptions and appellate review)
State v. Rodriguez‑Roman, 297 Conn. 66 (statutory construction principles)
State v. Akande, 299 Conn. 551 (forgery conviction for forged insurance documents under § 53a‑139)
State v. Paige, 115 Conn. App. 717 (forgery conviction for forged letter under § 53a‑139)
State v. Servello, 80 Conn. App. 313 (same)
State v. Yurch, 37 Conn. App. 72 (distinguishing elements of 2nd vs. 3rd degree forgery)
People v. Gause, 2 A.D.3d 1449 (N.Y. App. Div.) (illustrative line between instruments that merely direct delivery and those affecting legal rights)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (materiality standard for undisclosed evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)