State v. SCOTT LaFONTAINE
128 Conn. App. 546
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Defendant Scott LaFontaine was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of harassment in the second degree under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183(a)(3) for a telephone call to a law office.
- His former wife’s postdivorce matters involved visitation and custody; Cunha represented her in those matters.
- On December 19, 2006, LaFontaine called Cunha’s office, spoke to the receptionist, and left a message when Cunha was unavailable.
- LaFontaine used insulting language toward Cunha and her sister (Ghere), causing fear and alarm to the staff.
- Massaro instructed by the office staff identified LaFontaine and relayed his identity and purpose; police arrived and observed staff visibly shaken.
- The trial court sentenced LaFontaine to 30 days total, and on appeal he challenged § 53a-183(a)(3) as vague and as applied to his speech; the appellate court agreed and reversed, remanding for acquittal on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness on its face and as applied to conduct | LaFontaine argues § 53a-183(a)(3) is vague | LaFontaine asserts lack of objective standard and overbreadth to speech | Not vague on its face; not vague as applied |
| Constitutional as applied to speech content | State prosecuted based on speech content | Speech should be constitutionally protected, invalidating application | Unconstitutional as applied; conviction reversed |
| Influence of first amendment on applying the statute | Statute improperly criminalizes speech | Speech content determines culpability | Statute impermissibly applied to speech; acquittal required |
| Remedy for constitutional violation | Judgment reversed; acquittal to be entered on both counts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795 (1994) (interpretive gloss to 'annoyance' by reasonable-person standard; fixes vagueness)
- State v. Cummings, 46 Conn.App. 661 (1997) (uses 'alarm' to remedy vagueness in § 53a-183(a)(3))
- State v. Murphy, 254 Conn. 554 (2000) (language in communication used to prove intent to harass)
- State v. Bell, 55 Conn.App. 475 (1999) (statute prohibits conduct, not content; not vague as to angry calls)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (2010) (vagueness focus; fair warning and avoid traps for the innocent)
- State v. Moulton, 120 Conn.App. 330 (2010) (unconstitutional as applied; speech basis; must focus on conduct)
- Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (three-part vagueness framework for First Amendment contexts)