State v. Parnoff
160 Conn.App. 270
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- On July 11, 2011, two water utility employees (Lathlean and Lavin), in uniform and with badges, entered property to inspect a fire hydrant and discovered its front cap had been removed and modified.
- The employees were about 100 feet from the defendant’s home when the defendant’s daughter informed him of their presence.
- The defendant confronted the employees, warned he would retrieve a gun and shoot them if they did not leave, and repeatedly told them to leave the property (asked them to leave at least six times).
- Police arrived ~10 minutes after the call; the defendant admitted saying he would shoot them, refused police requests to step back, and was arrested.
- Charged with disorderly conduct (§ 53a-182(a)(1)) and criminal mischief; jury convicted only of disorderly conduct.
- On appeal, the defendant challenged sufficiency of the evidence, arguing his statement did not constitute constitutionally unprotected "fighting words." The appellate court reversed and ordered a judgment of acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's threat constituted "fighting words" (violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior) under § 53a-182(a)(1) | The state argued the verbal threat to get a gun and shoot the employees amounted to fighting words that portend physical violence and thus satisfied the statute. | Parnoff argued the statement was conditional, he showed no weapon or gesture, was unarmed and did not create an imminent risk of retaliation, so the speech is protected. | Reversed: insufficient evidence; statement did not constitute fighting words because it lacked imminence and the factual context made retaliation unlikely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (establishes "fighting words" doctrine as unprotected speech)
- State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (1994) (interprets § 53a-182(a)(1) and recognizes fighting-words limitation when statute is applied to pure speech)
- State v. Szymkiewicz, 237 Conn. 613 (1996) (applies fighting-words analysis to public-disturbance statute and explains speech can be proscribed when it portends imminent violence)
- State v. DeLoreto, 265 Conn. 145 (2003) (establishes de novo review for free speech sufficiency and requires courts to examine statements and context)