State v. Lamantia
187 A.3d 513
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Late-night altercation at 18 Bunny Drive involving Moulson (victim), Rajewski (defendant’s boyfriend), and Babcock; state trooper Baker investigated and identified participants.
- Shortly after the incident, the defendant, Jasmine Lamantia, sent nonviolent text messages to Rajewski urging that their stories "match," to tell police certain things (e.g., that Moulson stalked her), and to delete texts.
- Rajewski showed the text conversation to Trooper Baker, who recorded it in his report; Rajewski and Babcock were arrested in connection with the disturbance.
- Baker confronted and then arrested Lamantia at the barracks based on the texts; she was charged with interfering with an officer (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167a) and tampering with a witness (§ 53a-151).
- Jury convicted Lamantia on both counts; trial court sentenced her to concurrent suspended one-year terms and probation. She appealed on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for interfering with an officer (§ 53a-167a) | Texts intended to obstruct investigation support conviction | Texts were nonviolent, nonthreatening communications to a third party and not "fighting words" or physical conduct | Reversed: insufficient—§ 53a-167a (as construed) proscribes physical conduct and fighting words; nonviolent texts do not qualify |
| Sufficiency for tampering with a witness (§ 53a-151) | Texts induced Rajewski to lie to police, showing intent to influence future official proceeding | Lamantia lacked specific intent to influence witness at an official proceeding; proceeding was not sufficiently probable | Affirmed: evidence supported intent to induce false statements and that an official proceeding was probable |
| Whether "official proceeding" required a probable trial of Rajewski | State: broader—proceeding could involve any participant (including defendant or others) | Defendant: improbable that a criminal trial would occur; speculative to infer intent for future proceeding | Court: "official proceeding" is broad; probability of prosecution may be inferred from circumstances and police involvement |
| Applicability of prior authority (Sabato/Williams) to verbal texts | State: Williams allows verbal conduct interfering when intended; Sabato distinguishable | Defendant: Sabato and Williams limit § 53a-167a to physical conduct/fighting words, so texts cannot support conviction | Court: Followed Sabato/Williams—limiting construction bars conviction under § 53a-167a for nonfighting verbal texts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 205 Conn. 456 (Conn. 1987) (construed § 53a-167a to proscribe physical conduct and fighting words intended to interfere with police)
- State v. Sabato, 321 Conn. 729 (Conn. 2016) (affirmed that nonfighting verbal communications like texts are not proscribed by § 53a-167a)
- State v. Ortiz, 312 Conn. 551 (Conn. 2014) (tampering statute applies when defendant believes an official proceeding will probably occur; attempts to induce a witness to lie to police can support tampering)
- State v. Foreshaw, 214 Conn. 540 (Conn. 1990) (official proceeding may be "about to be instituted" where police involvement makes prosecution readily apt to follow)
- State v. Aloi, 280 Conn. 824 (Conn. 2007) (refusal to cooperate with police may impede duties and support interfering-with-officer charge)
- State v. Briggs, 94 Conn. App. 722 (Conn. App. 2006) (statute proscribes acts intended to thwart police; intent is required)