State v. Sidiropoulos

Syllabus

Convicted of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of statute (§ 53a-181 (a) (5)) after an angry confrontation in a dental office, the defen- dant appealed. The defendant, a white man, repeatedly and loudly yelled \stupid nigger\ at a multiracial dental assistant, M, while in an examination room with M. He claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the words he uttered to M constituted pro- tected speech under the first amendment to the United States constitution and under article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the Connecticut constitution. Held: This court concluded that the circumstances at issue warranted a finding that the defendant's language constituted fighting words that were not protected under the first amendment and, thus, provided a sufficient basis to support the defendant's conviction, as they were likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction from a reasonable person in M's position. The defendant's unpreserved claim that his speech was protected under article first, §§ 4, 5 and 14, of the state constitution failed under State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as this court applied the multifactor approach to state constitutional interpretation under State v. Geisler (222 Conn. 672) and concluded that the Geisler factors did not support the defendant's con- tention that the broader protections for speech under the state constitution extended to fighting words. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that § 53a-181 (a) (5) is unconstitutionally vague on its face, this court having previously found that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague, which the defendant did not challenge on appeal, and the judicial gloss courts have applied to § 53a-181 (a) (5) limits its reach to unprotected fighting words so as to ensure that it comports with constitutional requirements, which include fair notice of what is prohibited; accordingly, the defendant failed to established the existence of