(a) A person is guilty of criminal violation of a protective order when an order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of section
46b-38c, subsection (f) of section
53a-28, or section
54-1k or
54-82r has been issued against such person, and such person violates such order.
(b) No person who is listed as a protected person in such protective order may be criminally liable for (1) soliciting, requesting, commanding, importuning or intentionally aiding in the violation of the protective order pursuant to subsection (a) of section 53a-8, or (2) conspiracy to violate such protective order pursuant to section 53a-48.
(c) Criminal violation of a protective order is a class D felony, except that any violation of a protective order that involves (1) imposing any restraint upon the person or liberty of a person in violation of the protective order, or (2) threatening, harassing, assaulting, molesting, sexually assaulting or attacking a person in violation of the protective order is a class C felony.
(P.A. 91-381, S. 1; P.A. 95-214, S. 5; P.A. 99-240, S. 4; P.A. 02-127, S. 3; P.A. 11-152, S. 11; P.A. 14-173, S. 5; 14-217, S. 122.)
History: P.A. 95-214 amended Subsec. (a) to include a protective order issued pursuant to Sec. 54-1k; P.A. 99-240 amended Subsec. (a) to include a protective order issued pursuant to Sec. 54-82r; Sec. 53a-110b transferred to Sec. 53a-223 in 2001; P.A. 02-127 amended Subsec. (b) to change the classification of the offense from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony; P.A. 11-152 added new Subsec. (b) to provide that no protected person may be criminally liable for specified offenses and redesignated existing Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c); P.A. 14-173 amended Subsec. (a) to add reference to Sec. 53a-28(f); P.A. 14-217 amended Subsec. (c) to add provision re class C felony when violation involves imposing restraint upon the person or liberty of a person, or threatening, harassing, assaulting, molesting, sexually assaulting or attacking a person in violation of protective order, effective January 1, 2015.
Annotations to former section 53a-110b:
Section, as amended by P.A. 99-240, does not provide that validity of underlying protective order is a necessary element of offense. 273 C. 418.
Cited. 46 CA 661. Criminal violation of a protective order pursuant to section and harassment in the second degree pursuant to Sec. 53a-183(a)(3) constitute separate offenses for double jeopardy purposes. 61 CA 118.
Annotations to present section:
Crime requires only a showing of general intent and jury could reasonably infer from circumstantial evidence that defendant had intent to violate protective order and direct evidence of intent was not required. 280 C. 69.
There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had actual notice of the protective order where defendant had admitted he knew he was not supposed to be near complainant and there was testimony re standard courtroom procedure of explaining the terms of the order and giving a copy to defendant; court did not need to decide whether actual notice is an implicit element of section. 159 CA 598.
Subsec. (a):
Subsec. and Sec. 53a-217(a)(3)(A) are not the same offense, and conviction under both sections for the same transaction does not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy. 307 C. 1.
Conviction under this section and Sec. 53a-107(a)(2) did not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy because legislature intended multiple punishments for offense of trespassing in violation of a protective order. 97 CA 72. Conviction under this Subsec. and Sec. 53a-217(a)(3)(A) did not violate constitutional protection against double jeopardy because legislature intended multiple punishments for possessing a firearm in violation of a protective order. 122 CA 399; judgment affirmed, see 307 C. 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
112
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
State v. Fagan, 905 A.2d 1101 (Conn. 2006).
State v. Fagan, 905 A.2d 1101 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 18× “The defendant, Damon Fagan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223, [1] one count of reckless driving in violation of General Statutes § 14-222, [2]…”
State v. Quint, 904 A.2d 216 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 15× “Quint, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of criminal violation of a protective order, pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-223 (a), and three counts of criminal trespass in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Osimanti, 6 A.3d 790 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 7× “The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s: (1) ruling precluding the admission of certain evidence concerning the victim’s history of engaging in domestic violence against his former girlfriend while intoxicated, including his conviction…”
State v. Charles, 826 A.2d 1172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 9× “General Statutes § 53a-223 (a) provides: “A person is guilty of criminal violation of a protective order when an order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of section 46b-38c, or section 54-lk or 54-82r has been issued against such person, and such person violates such order.”
State v. Fernando a., 981 A.2d 427 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Such order shall be made a condition of the bail or release of the defendant and shall contain the following language: `In accordance with section 53a-223 of the Connecticut general statutes, any violation of this order constitutes criminal violation of a protective order which…”
State v. Calabrese, 902 A.2d 1044 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “to 2001) § 53a-223 2 in another case. On appeal, 3 the defendant claims, inter alia, that *396 the trial court improperly excluded from evidence certain messages left on his answering machine that were admissible under § 8-8 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, 4 because they…”
State v. Russell, 922 A.2d 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The defendant, Leslie Russell, appeals from the judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of stalking in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181e (a), 1 two counts of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General…”
State v. Robert S., 181 A.3d 568 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 6× “, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. 1 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support…”
State v. Winter, 979 A.2d 608 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 7× “The defendant, Michael Winter, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223, disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182, falsely reporting an…”
Hines v. Comm'r of Corr., 138 A.3d 430 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 4× “ial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he challenged his conviction for criminal attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and…”
State v. Daniel B., 201 A.3d 989 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 4× “The defendant subsequently was charged with viola- tion of a criminal protective order under General Statutes §§ 53a-223 and 46b-38c (e) based on the March 9 allegations, and the jury in the present case acquitted the defendant of the charged crime.”
State v. Youngs, 904 A.2d 1240 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Youngs, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a) and criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. On appeal, the defendant…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-223(a) — 5 cases
State v. Robert S., 181 A.3d 568 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
“, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. 1 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support…”
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.