(a) A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted, he induces or attempts to induce a witness to testify falsely, withhold testimony, elude legal process summoning him to testify or absent himself from any official proceeding.
(b) Tampering with a witness is a class C felony.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 153; P.A. 03-259, S. 52.)
History: P.A. 03-259 amended Subsec. (b) to change tampering with a witness from a class D felony to a class C felony.
Cited. 193 C. 526; 196 C. 242; 197 C. 369; 200 C. 664; 204 C. 330; 228 C. 147; Id., 918; 230 C. 686; Id., 698.
Cited. 1 CA 647; 12 CA 74; 26 CA 758; 30 CA 95; judgment reversed, see 228 C. 147; 33 CA 143; 46 CA 741. Defendant's claim that statute is so vague and indefinite that it violates the due process clause of Art. I, Sec. 8 of the state constitution and the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution because it did not clearly define his conduct–telephoning victim despite police warnings not to contact her and instructing her to tell police that “nothing ever happened”–is without merit; language of statute plainly warns potential perpetrators that statute applies to any conduct that is intended to prompt witness to testify falsely or to refrain from testifying in an official proceeding that the perpetrator believes to be pending or imminent; legislature's unqualified use of word “induce” clearly informs persons of ordinary intelligence that any conduct, physical or verbal, can potentially give rise to criminal liability. 74 CA 473. Supreme Court made clear that liability under section hinges on mental state of the perpetrator in engaging in the conduct at issue, not on whether he must overcome by coercive means the will of a witness reluctant to do so; as interpreted in our case law, section provides fair warning of the conduct that it prohibits. 83 CA 672. Section can be violated even if witness may be independently willing to provide false testimony; person became a “witness” who may be summoned to testify in an official proceeding once defendant began discussing defendant's case with the person. 138 CA 420. Defendant may not avoid liability by inducing a witness' false testimony through the use of an intermediary instead of communicating directly with the witness. 143 CA 438.
Cited. 39 CS 428; 41 CS 525; 43 CS 46.
Subsec. (a):
Subsec. applies whenever defendant believes that an official proceeding will probably occur, even if the police are only at the investigation stage and regardless of whether an official proceeding is actually pending or about to be instituted; “about to be instituted” signifies probability rather than temporal proximity; section does not apply when defendant believes that only an investigation, but not an official proceeding, is likely to occur; the jury may consider defendant's attempt to prevent a potential witness from speaking with the police as evidence of his intent to induce the witness to engage in conduct prohibited by section. 312 C. 551.
Cited. 41 CA 584. The “pending or about to be instituted” element may be satisfied when facts support the inference that defendant reasonably could have contemplated that an official proceeding was likely to arise; it is enough under statute to satisfy required belief that an official proceeding is “about to be instituted” and is therefore imminent if defendant, knowing he has been implicated in a crime, threatens a likely witness to that crime to withhold evidence from the police; it is sufficient to qualify as tampering that defendant attempted to discourage the witness from speaking to the police, as opposed to testifying at trial, when there was evidence that defendant believed an official proceeding was imminent. 110 CA 608.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
119
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bennett-Gibson, 851 A.2d 1214 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
State v. Bennett-Gibson, 851 A.2d 1214 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 38× “The defendant, Joyce Bennett-Gibson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151 (a). 1 On appeal, the defen *50 dant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her…”
State v. Cavallo, 513 A.2d 646 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 30× “After a jury trial, the defendant, John Cavallo, was convicted of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. He appeals from this judgment.”
State v. Coleman, 851 A.2d 329 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 18× “The defendant, Christopher Coleman, appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) § 53a-151 is unconstitutionally…”
State v. Lamantia, 336 Conn. 747 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 18× “2 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to induce a witness to testify…”
State v. Pommer, 955 A.2d 637 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 14× “The defendant, Richard Pommer, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (3), one count of robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Higgins, 811 A.2d 765 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 17× “The defendant, Albert Higgins, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of tampering with a witness on March 23, 1999, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a…”
State v. Sabato, 138 A.3d 895 (Conn. 2016).
· cites it 8× “3d 1128 (2014), this court explained that the phrase "believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted," as used in General Statutes § 53a-151 (a), 10 the witness tampering statute, is satisfied "as long as the defendant believes that an official…”
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “2d 408 (1985), the defendant, David Gethers, was charged with, and subsequently convicted of, tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. 123 On appeal to this court, Gethers claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his state constitutional…”
State v. Fernando a., 981 A.2d 427 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 6× “lly required in § 54-82r(a) that a judge considering the entry of a protective order for the benefit of a witness hold a "hearing at which hearsay evidence shall be admissible" and "[find] by a preponderance of the evidence that harassment of an identified witness in a criminal…”
State v. Liebenguth, 186 A.3d 39 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 14× “e 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…”
State v. Lee, 52 A.3d 736 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 10× “tion of a motor vehicle while his license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (c), conspiracy to make a false statement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-157b (a), conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in…”
State v. Lamantia, 187 A.3d 513 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 11× “We agree with the defendant with respect to the interfering with an officer count, but disagree as to the tampering with a witness count.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-151(a) — 7 cases
State v. Lamantia, 187 A.3d 513 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
“We agree with the defendant with respect to the interfering with an officer count, but disagree as to the tampering with a witness count.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.