· 6/2/2020

State v. Lori T.

Citations

  • 197 Conn. App. 675

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 53a-98 (a) (3)), a person is guilty of custodial interfer- ence in the second degree when, knowing that she has no right to do so, she ''holds, keeps or otherwise refuses to return a child . . . to such child's lawful custodian after a request by such custodian for the return of such child.'' Convicted, after a jury trial, of three counts of the crime of custodial interfer- ence in the second degree, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant's children were at her home in Glastonbury for purposes of visitation over a holiday weekend. The defendant's former husband, F, who is the children's father, had sole physical and legal custody of the children, but they wanted to live with the defendant and not with F. When F arrived to pick up the children in accordance with the visitation schedule, the defendant told F that she was not sending the children out to him because they did not want to come out and that she was going to do what the children wanted to do. F contacted N, a Norwalk police officer and the children's school resource officer, and told him about the children's refusal to return to his home in Norwalk. A few days later, N contacted the defendant by telephone and asked her why the children were not returned to F, and she told N that they did not want to come out to F and that she would not make them go with him. N then warned the defendant that she could be in trouble if she did not return the children to school. When the children were still not in school approximately one week later, N followed up with the defendant, who said that she would not return the children to school. Thereafter, N sought an arrest warrant for the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claimed that § 53a-98 (a) (3) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to her and that there was insufficient evidence to support her convic- tion. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on her unpreserved claim that § 53a-98 (a) (3) was unconstitutionally vague as applie

Judges: Prescott; Bright; Devlin

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.