345 Conn. 44
Conn.2022Background:
- Lori T., noncustodial parent, had visitation; ex-husband (father) had sole legal and physical custody of four children (ages 9–13).
- Over Memorial Day weekend (2015) the children refused to return to their father; when he arrived per the visitation schedule Lori told him she "wasn't sending the children out" and would "do what the children wanted."
- Glastonbury PD welfare-checked the children but did not arrest Lori; Norwalk school resource officer Nash later spoke with Lori, who again refused to return the children and initially agreed to put them back in school but later reneged.
- Nash obtained an arrest warrant; DCF intervened and children were removed and placed temporarily elsewhere.
- Lori was charged (three counts tried) and convicted of custodial interference in the second degree (§ 53a-98(a)(3)); she appealed claiming (1) § 53a-98(a)(3) is unconstitutionally vague as applied and (2) insufficient evidence to prove she "otherwise refuse[d] to return" the children.
- Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, affirmed the Appellate Court: statute covers both affirmative and passive refusals; the evidence supported conviction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lori) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 53a-98(a)(3) is unconstitutionally vague as applied | "Refuses to return" has plain meaning; covers affirmative or passive refusal; Lori had fair notice | Phrase ambiguous; Lori lacked notice that inaction (not forcing children) could be criminal; risk of arbitrary enforcement | Statute not vague as applied: "refuses to return" includes affirmative acts or passive inaction; Lori's conduct fell within the statute's core |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Lori "otherwise refuse[d] to return" the children | Lori repeatedly said she would not send children to father and took no steps to return them; jury could infer refusal | Lori argued she urged children to go and lacked ability to force them; thus state failed to prove refusal/ability | Sufficient evidence: jury reasonably found Lori abdicated parental responsibility, declined to take steps to return children, supporting conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (Conn. 2010) (void-for-vagueness standards and presumption of statute validity)
- State v. Corbeil, 41 Conn. App. 7 (Conn. App. 1996) ("refuse" may be shown by failure to cooperate; dictionary definitions informative)
- State v. Stephens, 301 Conn. 791 (Conn. 2011) (statute with a clear core obviates vagueness concerns)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (laws must provide standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (requirement that statutes establish minimal guidelines for enforcement)
- State v. Doyen, 165 Vt. 43 (Vt. 1996) (failure to act can be criminal where legal duty to act exists)