Skip to main content

State v. Bemer

Citations

  • 340 Conn. 804

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 53a-83 (c) (2) (A)), patronizing a prosti- tute is a class C felony if the individual guilty of that offense ''knew or reasonably should have known at the time of the offense that such other person . . . was the victim of conduct of another person that consti- tutes . . . trafficking in persons . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute ((Supp. 2016) § 53a-192a (a) (1)), ''[a] person is guilty of trafficking in persons when such person . . . compels or induces another person to engage in conduct involving more than one occurrence of sexual conduct with one or more third persons'' by means of fraud or coercion. Convicted of multiple counts of the felony of patronizing a prostitute and of one count of trafficking in persons as an accessory, the defendant appealed, claiming that the state had presented insufficient evidence to convict him of those offenses. The defendant's conviction stemmed from his involvement with K, whom the defendant had known for more than twenty years and had employed to perform odd jobs for him. During 340 Conn. 804 JANUARY, 2022 805 State v. Bemer that time, K arranged for the defendant to meet with men K had recruited. The defendant would then engage in sexual conduct with those men for a fee. The defendant did not communicate with the men directly to coordinate their meetings. Instead, K would phone or text the defendant, sometimes including photographs of the men, to gauge his interest and then arrange for them to meet. The defendant paid the men directly but knew that K would receive a portion of the fee. Altogether, the defendant had engaged in more than 100 sexual encounters with approximately eight to ten men, several of whom testified at the defendant's trial. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, held: 1. The evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant of the felony of patronizing a prostitute, as the state did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant knew or reason

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • inference cannot be based on mere possibilities or surmise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.