Skip to main content
· 4/13/2021

State v. Cheryl J.

Citations

  • 203 Conn. App. 742

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of criminal violation of a protective order, the defen- dant appealed to this court. The trial court had issued a protective order against the defendant, which provided that she must, inter alia, stay away from the home of the victim, her former husband, and wherever the victim shall reside. The protective order listed the victim's address as a certain property, which he had obtained through divorce proceed- ings with the defendant. At the time the court issued the order, the defendant requested further clarification of the order from the court. The court orally advised the defendant to stay away from the residence of the victim, wherever it may be, including the residence listed on the protective order. Thereafter, as the defendant was driving by the property, she noticed a real estate agent's car in the driveway and pulled up to the driveway, telling the agent that she could not list or sell the property because of pending legal proceedings and a court order relating to the property. The agent notified the victim of this interaction. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on her claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she had the requisite intent to be convicted of criminal violation of a protective order, as that crime is not a specific intent crime; the state was not required to prove that the defendant specifically intended to violate a condition of the protective order, only that she intended to perform the activities constituting the violation of the protective order, specifically, that she intended to go to the property, and it was undisputed that she went to the property. 2. The defendant could not prevail on her claim that the criminal violation of protective order statute (§ 53a-223) was void for vagueness as applied to her because the language of the protective order, as explained to her by the trial court, did not provide adequate notice of what was prohibited; the terms of the protective order provided adequate n

Judges: Elgo; Cradle; Alexander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.