Skip to main content
· 8/31/2021

State v. Jodi D.

Citations

  • 340 Conn. 463

Syllabus

Pursuant to the statute (§ 53a-60b (a) (1)) delineating the crime of assault of a disabled person in the second degree, a person is guilty of that crime when he or she commits the crime of assault in the second degree and the victim is ''physically disabled,'' as defined by statute (§ 1-1f). In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of family violence, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 464 DECEMBER, 2021 340 Conn. 463 State v. Jodi D. Pursuant to § 1-1f (b), ''[a]n individual is physically disabled if he has any chronic physical handicap, infirmity or impairment . . . .'' Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of assault of a disabled person in the second degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that § 53a-60b (a) (1), the statute under which she had been convicted, was unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct to the extent that it relied on the definition of physical disability set forth in § 1-1f (b). The defendant and her sister, S, had engaged in a physical altercation during which the defendant struck S with a wooden billy club. At the time of the altercation, S suffered from fibromyalgia, a condition for which she had been receiving ongoing medical treatment and taking prescription medication. As a result of that condition, S experienced chronic pain issues and physical limitations that made sitting, standing and walking difficult. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding, inter alia, that § 53a-60b (a) (1) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant's conduct because the term ''physical disability,'' as defined in § 1-1f (b), had a readily ascertainable meaning, and the defendant's conduct clearly came within the unmistakable core of conduct prohibited by § 53a-60b (a) (1). The Appellate Court also concluded that there was sufficient

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

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.