(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person or group of persons motivated in whole or in substantial part by the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person or group of persons, does any of the following: (1) Causes physical contact with such other person or group of persons, (2) damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of such other person or group of persons, or (3) threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection, if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (1) or (2) of this subsection will occur.
(b) Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree is a class D felony, for which one thousand dollars of the fine imposed may not be remitted or reduced by the court unless the court states on the record its reasons for remitting or reducing such fine.
(P.A. 00-72, S. 2; P.A. 04-135, S. 3; P.A. 17-111, S. 6; P.A. 21-78, S. 18.)
History: P.A. 04-135 amended Subsec. (a) to add “disability” and “gender identity or expression” as bases; P.A. 17-111 amended Subsec. (a) to add “sex”, and add references to group of persons, and amended Subsec. (b) to add provision re minimum fine and remitting or reducing fine; P.A. 21-78 amended Subsec. (a) by replacing “because of” with “motivated in whole or in substantial part by”.
See Sec. 52-571c re action for damages and other relief for violation of this section.
Subsec. (a):
Subdiv. (3) not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. 265 C. 145.
Subdiv. (3) is not unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibits only true threats, not all threats, and is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness in context of defendant's actions and words. 104 CA 46. Evidence was sufficient for jury to reasonably determine that defendant had requisite specific intent to intimidate or harass victim on basis of victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, which evidence included statement to police replete with disparaging remarks against homosexuals and defendant's statement prior to incident that victim was homosexual. 118 CA 711.
Sec. 53a-181l. Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the third degree: Class E felony. (a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the third degree when such person, with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person or group of persons motivated in whole or in substantial part by the actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression of such other person or persons: (1) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property, or (2) threatens, by word or act, to do an act described in subdivision (1) of this subsection or advocates or urges another person to do an act described in subdivision (1) of this subsection, if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in said subdivision will occur.
(b) Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the third degree is a class E felony, for which one thousand dollars of the fine imposed may not be remitted or reduced by the court unless the court states on the record its reasons for remitting or reducing such fine.
(P.A. 00-72, S. 3; P.A. 04-135, S. 4; P.A. 17-111, S. 7; P.A. 21-78, S. 19.)
History: P.A. 04-135 amended Subsec. (a) to add “disability” and “gender identity or expression” as bases; P.A. 17-111 amended Subsec. (a) to add “sex”, and amended Subsec. (b) to change offense from a class A misdemeanor to a class E felony and to add provision re minimum fine and remitting or reducing such fine; P.A. 21-78 amended Subsec. (a) by replacing “because of” with “motivated in whole or in substantial part by”.
See Sec. 52-571c re action for damages and other relief for violation of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case:
State v. Skidd, 932 A.2d 416 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
State v. Skidd, 932 A.2d 416 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 34× “In this case, the defendant, Kevin Bruce Skidd, was convicted of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181k (a) (3) for threatening an individual while using a racial slur and of breach of the peace in the second degree…”
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “" General Statutes § 53a-181k provides: "(a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of the actual or perceived race, religion,…”
Prescott v. Gilshteyn, 227 Conn. App. 553 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 5× “’’ Pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-181k (a), ‘‘[a] person is guilty of intimi- dation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person or group of persons motivated in whole or in…”
Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F. Supp. 2d 322 (D. Conn. 2004).
· cites it 6× “The Amended Complaint contains the following seven counts: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment; (2) excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; (3) violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-181k "Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the…”
State v. Kowalyshyn, 985 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 4× “tion, following a jury trial, of attempt to commit assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-60, threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, reckless endangerment in the second degree in violation of…”
Gorawara v. Caprio (D. Conn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “4 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181k provides: Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree: Class D felony (a) A person is guilty of intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the second degree when such person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass…”
Gawlik v. Semple (D. Conn. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Claims Against Connecticut State Troopers and Commissioner Rovella Gawlik additionally brings claims against State Trooper Mejias, Lieutenant Ceruti and Detective Vayan for their failure to adequately investigate his claims that the defendants violated Connecticut General…”
Kowalyshyn v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).
“In 2007, following a jury trial, the peti- tioner was convicted of attempt to commit assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and § 53a-60, threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, reckless endangerment in…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181k(a) — 1 case
Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F. Supp. 2d 322 (D. Conn. 2004).
“The Amended Complaint contains the following seven counts: (1) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment; (2) excessive force under the Eighth Amendment; (3) violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-181k "Intimidation based on bigotry or bias in the…”
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.