State v. SteinmannState v. Steinmann
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Spallone
Thе defendant appeals his convictions, after a trial to the court, of simple trespass in viola
The court could reasonably have found the following facts. A conflict arose in the spring of 1987 between the defendant, John Steinmann, and the First Congregational Church in the tоwn of Washington. Because the defendant allegedly was bothering women parishoners and using the church for personal meetings, the church pastor, the Reverend Richard Sears, sent a letter to the defendant in April, 1987, asking that he stop attending church services. In November, 1987, Sears again told the defendant that he was not welcome on church property. Sears conveyed this decision, approved by the church board of deacons, to the defendant in the presence of three church officials and Trooper Robert Tomlinson of the state police. The defendant informed Sears that he understood the proscription. Tomlinson was satisfied that the defendant understood the church’s order barring him from entry.
On Saturday, December 12, 1987, the defendant called Tomlinson and, after a lengthy conversation, asserted that he planned to attend church services and, despite Tomlinson’s admonitions, attended the morning service the next day. He was issued a misdemeanor summons for criminal trespass as he left the service. On Saturday, March 12, 1988, the defendant visited Tomlinson’s office to say that he was unhappy with the сhurch’s decision and that he would continue to attend church services. Again, Tomlinson informed the defendant that he was not welcome on church property. The defendant nevertheless entered the church property and attended services on March 13, 1988. Upon issue
The defendant was originally charged with three counts of criminal trespass in the first degree. The state subsequently filed substitute informations charging the defendant with three counts of simple trespass in violation of General Statutes § SSa-llOa.1 After a trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty and fined on each count. This appeal followed.
The defendant first contests the court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to
The appropriate standard of review with respect to a sufficiency claim “is whether the [court] could have
Here, there was ample evidence before the court that the defendant entered church property, on the three occasions charged, as a knowing trespasser. The record reveals that the defendant had been unequivocally informed and understood that his privilege to attend church services had been revoked. We cannot say that a rational trier of fact could not have found evidence for each essential element of the crime of simple trespass, and the verdict must stand. See State v. Kelly, 208 Conn. 365, 386, 545 A.2d 1048 (1988).
The defendant also argues that State v. Mention, 12 Conn. App. 258, 530 A.2d 645, cert. denied, 205 Conn. 809, 532 A.2d 78 (1987), the only case construing
The defendant misreads Mention. The court in that case held that a business invitee cannot be charged with simple trespass in areas open to the public without evidence that he entered with knowledge that he was not privileged to do so. “The language of
Moreover, the critical issue in Mention was the defendant’s state of mind, rather than the nature of the premises. Id. Property does not lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569, 92 S. Ct. 2219, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972); Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 66, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984). The owner or one in lawful possession has the right to determine whom to invite, the scope of thе invitation and the circumstances under which the invitation may be revoked. Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, supra, 567.
The defendant next argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss pursuant to
The defendant offered no explanation for the lateness of his motion at trial and he offers none on appeal. Indeed, the defendant makes no mention of the procedural default and briefs the issue as if the trial cоurt considered the merits of the motion, which it did not. Despite the procedural defects, however, we review this claim of unconstitutional infirmity because it implicates fundamental due process rights. See State v. Marra, 195 Conn. 421, 428, 489 A.2d 350 (1985).
The defendant bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377, 385, 528 A.2d 794 (1987). In reviewing such claim, this court approaches the question with great caution, examining it with infinite care and makes every presumption in favor of validity. State v. Rado, 14 Conn. App. 322, 326, 541 A.2d 124 (1987), cert. denied, 208 Conn. 813, 546 A.2d 282, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 927, 109 S. Ct. 311, 102 L. Ed. 2d 330 (1988).
To survive a constitutional attack of vagueness, a penal statute must give fair warning that the conduct is proscribed and establish reasonable guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State v. Eason, 192 Conn. 37, 45, 470 A.2d 688 (1984). Moreover, the court must consider how the statute was applied to the particular faсts at issue. State v. Proto, 203 Conn. 682, 696, 526 A.2d 1297 (1987).
The defendant also argues that
The defendant’s final claim is that his prosecution for simple trespass violated his right to equal protection of the law. The defendant argues that the various trespass statutes creаte two different classes of trespasser, criminal trespassers and simple trespassers, but only the latter group is denied affirmative defenses and the right to a jury trial. Compare.
In enacting
Even if we were to accept, arguendo, that different classes of trespassers are defined by the various trespass statutes, reasonable classifications do nоt violate the right to equal protection under the law. State v. Grullon, 212 Conn. 195, 214, 562 A.2d 481 (1989).
The legislature has seen fit to distinguish by degree of seriousness the’ unauthorized entry into various areas. Trespass violations range from the misdemeanors of criminal trespass to the infraction of simple trespass. The consequences flowing from a conviction of criminal trespass are greater than those flowing from a conviction of simple trespass. The legislature could reasonably decide, as a matter of policy, that the greater culpability of criminal trespass be afforded the affirmative defenses of § 53a-110 while the less culpable act of simple trespass, an infraction subject to only a fine, receive no such benefit. Such a reasonable policy defeats the defendant’s claims of an unreasonable classification of trespassers.
The defendant has no constitutional right to choose whiсh statute shall be the basis of his prosecution. State v. Vaughn, 20 Conn. App. 386, 392, 567 A.2d 392 (1989). The choice is within the state’s discretionary power, limited by what may reasonably be expected to be proved at trial. Id. The defendant here complains that he was not charged with criminal trespass but has failed to show that the prosecutor abused his discretion in choosing to proceed under a statute that imposed a lesser punishment.
The defendant’s conviction of simple trespass is clearly supported by the evidence. Further,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
“The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the indictment or information:
“(5) Insufficiency of evidence or cause to justify the bringing or continuing of such information or indictment or the placing of the defendant on trial . . . .”
“The following defenses or objections, if capable of determination without a trial of the general issue, shall, if made prior to trial, be raised by a motion to dismiss the indictment or information:
“(8) Claim that the law defining the offense charged is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid . . . .”