*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDWARD F. TAUPIER (AC 42115) Keller, Prescott and Harper, Js. Syllabus Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of five counts of threat- ening in the second degree in connection with posts he made on Face- book that contained several threatening statements directed toward Superior Court judges and court employees, the defendant appealed. The defendant had been convicted of similar charges in 2014 in connec- tion with sending a threatening e-mail to a Superior Court judge during his contentious divorce proceedings. In 2017, while on house arrest and while his appeal from his prior conviction was pending in our Supreme Court, the defendant posted several statements on Facebook that threat- ened the Cromwell Police Department and called for the killing of judges and court employees and the arson of courthouses. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that a jury reasonably could find that the defendant’s statements, in light of the context in which they were made, were not protected by the first amendment because they were advocacy directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and were likely to do so and because the statements constituted true threats. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss because the statements were not true threats and, thus, were constitutionally protected free speech. Held that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, as there was probable cause to support continuing a constitutional prosecution against the defendant under each count for threatening to commit a crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror; the uncontested facts in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, would allow a person of reasonable caution to believe that at least five of the defen- dant’s statements were highly likely to …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field