To hear Prof. Schairer's commentary, click on the speaker icon to the left.   Click on the icon a second time when you are ready to stop.



35 Conn. Supp. 587, *; 401 A.2d 619, **;
1978 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155, ***

State of Connecticut v. John Hoskins

File No. 581

Superior Court of Connecticut, Appellate Session.

35 Conn. Supp. 587; 401 A.2d 619; 1978 Conn. Super. LEXIS 155

 
February 22, 1978, Argued  
May 5, 1978, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:    
Information in three counts charging the defendant with breach of the peace, criminal mischief in the third degree, and wilful failure to appear in the second degree, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in the fourteenth geographical area and tried to the court, Covello, J.; judgment of guilty on all counts and appeal by the defendant.

DISPOSITION: Error in part; judgment directed.
CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant minister appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in the fourteenth geographical area (Connecticut), which convicted him of breach of the peace, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181, criminal mischief in the third degree, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-117, and wilful failure to appear in the second degree, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-173.

OVERVIEW: The first two charges arose out of anti-Semitic religious messages, which the minister painted on boards attached to his church building. The third charge arose from his failure to appear in court for trial. The minister appealed from his conviction on all counts, claiming that his conviction on the breach of peace charge was precluded by his right to free speech and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on the other two charges. Applying the common law principles used to analyze fighting words and free speech, the court found that, under the circumstances of this case, the expression was not intended or likely to produce imminent disorder. Thus, the court concluded that the breach of the peace conviction could not stand. The court also found that the conviction for criminal mischief could not stand because the minister reasonably believed he had a right to his actions, as the boards were owned by the church and his congregation did not protest the message. Finally, the court concluded that the minister's failure to appear on the trial date coupled with his departure for parts unknown supported his conviction for wilful failure to appear.

OUTCOME: The court found no error as to the conviction for wilful failure to appear. The court found error as to the convictions for breach of the peace and criminal mischief and set aside the judgment on each of those counts, remanding the case with direction to render a judgment of not guilty on the breach of the peace and the criminal mischief counts.