State v. Wiggins, 159 Conn.App. 598

Defendant Kipp Mendez Wiggins was subject to a criminal protective order (required to stay 100 yards from the complainant) issued after his December 2009 arrest for trespass and stalking; the order remained in effect pending criminal disposition.
On March 31, 2010, the complainant saw the defendant ride by her parked car in her driveway, make and maintain eye contact, smile, and remain within ~55 feet for about a minute; she called police.
Trooper James Parker questioned the defendant at his home; the defendant admitted he "knew he was not supposed to be near" the complainant and said he loved her.
Court deputy chief clerk Eric Groody testified that Bantam courthouse practice was to have the judge explain protective order terms at arraignment and hand a signed copy to the defendant; Groody lacked recollection of this specific arraignment.
The defendant was tried on one count of criminal violation of a protective order (Gen. Stat. § 53a-223), convicted by a jury, and sentenced; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence of actual notice and that the complainant’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved defendant had actual notice of the protective order	State: even if notice is required, circumstantial evidence (defendant's admission + clerk's testimony about routine practice) suffices	Defendant: state failed to prove he actually received or was explained the order at arraignment; no direct proof of notice	Held: Court assumed notice could be an element but found sufficient evidence for actual notice based on defendant's admission to police and courthouse business practice evidence
Whether complainant’s inconsistent statements made her testimony legally incredible	State: credibility is for the jury to resolve	Defendant: trial testimony conflicted with prior police statement, so testimony was unreliable	Held: Rejected — credibility determinations are for the jury; inconsistencies did not make testimony incredible as a matter of law

State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99 (discusses burdens for insufficiency claims)
State v. Papandrea, 302 Conn. 340 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; circumstantial evidence accepted)
State v. Lavigne, 121 Conn. App. 190 (permitting jurors to draw common-sense inferences)
State v. Crafts, 226 Conn. 237 (permissibility of resting an inference upon other inferences)
State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510 (jurors are exclusive judges of witness credibility)
State v. Mejia, 233 Conn. 215 (deference to jury credibility assessments)