State v. Parnoff, 186 A.3d 640

Background

Laurence Parnoff, shirtless on his property and collecting worms, told two Aquarion Water Company employees servicing a hydrant on an easement that if they did not leave he would get a gun and shoot/kill them.
Employees Lavin (apprentice) and Lathlean (experienced) remained; Lathlean called police; both testified to the threat (slightly different wording).
Parnoff was tried by jury, acquitted of criminal mischief, convicted of disorderly conduct under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-182(a)(1), and appealed.
Appellate Court reversed, concluding the statements were protected "pure speech" that did not meet the fighting-words standard (i.e., not likely to provoke imminent violence).
Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification, conducted independent (de novo) review because First Amendment issues were implicated, and affirmed the Appellate Court: insufficient evidence that the speech constituted unprotected fighting words.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Parnoff)	Held
Whether Parnoff's conditional gun threat unaccompanied by action falls outside First Amendment protection as "fighting words"	The threat was likely to provoke immediate violent retaliation (including preemptive self‑defense) and thus is unprotected fighting words supporting disorderly conduct conviction	Statement was protected pure speech; did not meet the fighting‑words requirement of being likely to provoke an imminent violent response	Court: No — insufficient evidence it were fighting words under the objective, contextual test; conviction reversed/ acquittal directed
Whether the true‑threats doctrine—rather than fighting words—was available to the State given the charge	State argued fighting words at trial (did not pursue true‑threat theory on appeal)	Parnoff maintained First Amendment protection under fighting‑words framework	Court: Declined to decide true‑threats question because State did not pursue it; refusal to convert case into true‑threats review on appeal
Proper standard of appellate review when First Amendment implicated	State urged deference to jury verdict	Parnoff argued for de novo review of speech‑protection issue	Court: Use two‑step sufficiency test with de novo review of legal question but accept non‑erroneous factual/credibility findings
Relevance of addressees’ attributes and context in fighting‑words inquiry	State emphasized seclusion and potential vulnerability of workers	Parnoff relied on workers’ professional role, lack of immediate ability to carry out threat, and their calm reactions	Court: Context matters; employees’ identifiable status and lack of immediate danger undermined likelihood of imminent violent reaction; these factors support reversal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baccala, 326 Conn. 232 (Conn. 2017) (modern, contextual framing of the fighting‑words doctrine; no per se fighting words)
State v. Krijger, 313 Conn. 434 (Conn. 2014) (articulates de novo appellate review for speech‑protection questions and limits on credibility reassessment)
State v. Pelella, 327 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2017) (discusses true‑threats doctrine; conditional threats can be true threats)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1942) (original articulation of fighting words as an exception to First Amendment protection)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1971) (fighting‑words must be likely to provoke violent reaction; context matters)
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (fighting‑words requires direct personal insult or invitation to fisticuffs)
State v. Szymkiewicz, 237 Conn. 613 (Conn. 1996) (disorderly conduct can proscribe speech that portends imminent physical violence)
State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (Conn. 1994) (discusses § 53a-182(a)(1) covering physical conduct and speech that portends imminent violence)