author: BERDON, J.

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOHN JAMES PETTIGREW
    (AC 29096)
    Harper, Robinson and Berdon, Js.

      Argued May 20
    officially released September 15, 2009

      Mary H. Trainer, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      James M. Belforti, certified legal intern, with whom were Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state’s attorney, and, on the brief, Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, and Marc G. Ramia, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

BERDON, J.

The defendant, John James Pettigrew, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to support the court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation and (2) the court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s appeal. On July 19, 2005, the defendant was convicted as a persistent offender of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40d. The court, Gold, J., sentenced him to five years imprisonment, execution suspended after eight months, and three years probation. The defendant’s probation period began on July 19, 2005. The terms of the defendant’s probation included the general condition that he abide by the laws of the state of Connecticut.

On June 29, 2006, the New Haven police arrested the defendant and charged him with selling heroin. Earlier that morning, Officer Christopher Perrone of the New Haven police department, who was highly trained and experienced in narcotics investigation, was patrolling the area of Washington Avenue and West Street, due to ongoing complaints of narcotics activity. Perrone observed a man, later identified as the defendant, sitting on the porch of 613 Washington Avenue, an abandoned property known to have been used for the sale of narcotics. After a short time, Perrone observed a white female, later identified as Beverly Coreano, approach the defendant and hand to him what appeared to be currency. The defendant then rode up West Street on a bicycle. Coreano waited several moments before walking in the same direction as the defendant had ridden.

Perrone lost sight of the defendant and Coreano for more than one minute before they returned to the location where he had observed them exchange what had appeared to be currency. Coreano then followed the defendant down an alley, out of Perrone’s view. On the basis of Perrone’s training and experience, he believed that a narcotics transaction was occurring. Shortly thereafter, he stopped Coreano, who gave him a bag of heroin and stated that she had bought it from the defendant. Coreano also told Perrone that in the past she had bought from the defendant drugs that she believed were heroin. Perrone placed Coreano under arrest and transported her to the police station. On the way to the police station, Perrone observed the defendant standing in front of 613 Washington Avenue. Perrone used his radio to transmit a description of the defendant. At the police station, using an array of photographs, Coreano identified the defendant as the man who had sold her the heroin. She also signed a statement, which was admitted into evidence, indicating that she had purchased the heroin from the defendant, whom she knew as “J.J.”

After receiving Perrone’s description of the defendant over the radio, Officer Matthew Wynne, also of the New Haven police department, drove to 613 Washington Avenue and placed the defendant under arrest. Wynne did not find any drugs or money in the defendant’s possession. On the basis of the information contained in the police report of this incident, the office of adult probation obtained a warrant for the arrest of the defendant for violating the terms of his probation. After conducting a probation violation hearing, the court, Holden, J., found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation and revoked his probation. The court sentenced the defendant to four years imprisonment out of the four years and four months remaining on his original sentence. This appeal followed.

“A revocation of probation hearing has two distinct components and two purposes. A factual determination by a trial court as to whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation must first be made. If a violation is found, a court must next determine whether probation should be revoked because the beneficial aspects of probation are no longer being served.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Waskiewicz, 68 Conn. App. 367, 369-70, 789 A.2d 1164 (2002).

I

The defendant claims that the evidence adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to support the court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation by selling narcotics. “To find that a defendant has violated the conditions of probation, the court must determine that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence. ... In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence. . . . Our review is limited to whether such a finding was clearly erroneous. ... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. ... In making this determination, every reasonable presumption must be given in favor of the trial court’s determination.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Misenti, 112 Conn. App. 562, 567-68, 963 A.2d 696, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 904, 967 A.2d 1220 (2009).

The defendant argues that the court’s finding that he sold heroin to Coreano was clearly erroneous. The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding because Perrone did not witness the transfer of drugs from the defendant to Coreano and because the defendant possessed neither drugs nor money when Wynne arrested him. We disagree.

Perrone testified that he observed Coreano hand to the defendant an object that he believed was currency. Perrone also testified that on the basis of his years of training and experience in narcotics investigation and the behavior of the defendant and Coreano, he believed they were engaging in a narcotics transaction. On the basis of his observations, Perrone questioned Coreano about his suspicion. Coreano admitted her involvement in the transaction, gave Perrone a bag of heroin and stated that she had bought it from the defendant. She also stated that on numerous past occasions she had bought from the defendant drugs that she believed were heroin.

This court has held that the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal conviction for the sale of narcotics where an officer observed items that he believed were drugs and money pass between the defendant and a third party and, shortly thereafter, drugs were found on the third party and not on the defendant. State v. Alvarado, 62 Conn. App. 102, 108-109, 773 A.2d 958, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 907, 772 A.2d 600 (2001). In the present case, the evidence against the defendant was more compelling than that against the defendant in Alvarado because, in the present case, Coreano expressly identified the defendant as the man who had sold her drugs, whereas in Alvarado the third party never identified the seller. Id., 109. Moreover, Alvarado was a criminal case, and, therefore, the state’s burden of proof was the more stringent standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., 106. In the present case, the state only needed to prove the allegations against the defendant by a fair preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285, 295, 641 A.2d 370 (1994).

We conclude that the court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, and, therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding that the defendant violated the terms of his probation.

II

The defendant next claims that the court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and sentenced him to four years imprisonment. “On the basis of its consideration of the whole record, the trial court may continue or revoke the sentence of probation . . . [and] . . . require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or impose any lesser sentence. ... In determining whether to revoke probation, the trial court shall consider the beneficial purposes of probation, namely rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of society. . . . The important interests in the probationer’s liberty and rehabilitation must be balanced, however, against the need to protect the public. . . . As we have stated, the court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a defendant’s probation, and we will not disturb a court’s decision revoking a defendant’s probation unless an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wright, 106 Conn. App. 295, 306, 942 A.2d 430, cert. denied, 286 Conn. 921, 949 A.2d 482 (2008); see also General Statutes § 53a-32 (b).

The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion when, during the revocation phase of his probation violation hearing, it considered evidence that while he was on probation, he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend, who was pregnant with his child. The defendant argues that it was improper for the court to consider this evidence during the revocation phase of his probation violation hearing because it was not the basis for the court’s finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. We disagree.

In State v. Davis, 29 Conn. App. 801, 811, 618 A.2d 557 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 229 Conn. 285, 641 A.2d 370 (1994), this court stated that, during a probation revocation hearing, a court may consider “the types of information properly considered at an original sentencing hearing because a revocation hearing is merely a reconvention of the original sentencing .... The court may, therefore, consider hearsay information, evidence of crimes for which the defendant was indicted but neither tried nor convicted, evidence of crimes for which the defendant was acquitted, and evidence of indictments or informations that were dismissed.” (Citation omitted.) Id. “Punishment must fit the criminal as well as the crime. . . . For the determination of sentences, justice generally requires consideration of more than the particular acts for which the crime was committed and that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and the propensities of the offender. . . . Included as part of this consideration is conduct arising subsequent to the conviction and the underlying crime and prior to final sentencing.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garvin, 43 Conn. App. 142, 151-52, 682 A.2d 562 (1996), aff'd, 242 Conn. 296, 699 A.2d 921 (1997). Therefore, the court acted within its discretion when, during the revocation phase of the defendant’s probation violation hearing, it considered evidence of the defendant’s arrest for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.

Moreover, a review of the transcript of the revocation phase of the defendant’s probation violation hearing illustrates that the court considered many factors before it revoked the defendant’s probation. The court expressly searched the defendant’s probation record for, and allowed the defendant an opportunity to present, evidence that his probation was serving him a rehabilitative purpose or that he was not a threat to the public. The court also considered (1) the defendant’s history of committing serious crimes, including repeated incidents of assault and selling drugs, (2) his past failed attempts at probation for other crimes, (3) that he had not taken advantage of drug or vocational programs while he was on probation and (4) that while on probation, the defendant had been accused of and arrested for assaulting his pregnant girlfriend.

We conclude that the court properly reviewed the defendant’s whole probation record and reasonably exercised its discretion in concluding that the beneficial aspects of the defendant’s probation were not being served and in revoking his probation.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The defendant was released, due to time he already had served, after he was sentenced.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HARPER, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. NAJEE MUHAMMAD
    (AC 29287)
    Harper, Beach and West, Js.

      Argued March 19
    officially released September 22, 2009

      Deborah G. Stevenson, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      Adam E. Mattei, special deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state’s attorney, and Cornelius P. Kelly, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

HARPER, J.

The defendant, Najee Muhammad, also known as Lester A. Edwards, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. The defendant claims that (1) the court based its revocation on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, (2) the court improperly failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law as to whether he had acted in self-defense during the incident underlying the violation of probation charge and (3) the court improperly failed to permit him to review and to present medical records supporting his claim of self-defense. With regard to the first claim raised by the defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. With regard to the remaining claims raised by the defendant, we dismiss the appeal.

The following facts and procedural history underlie the defendant’s appeal. In November, 2002, the defendant was convicted, following his plea of nolo conten-dere, of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). That charge arose from allegations that the defendant engaged in sexual contact with his daughter when she was eight years old. The court sentenced the defendant to a ten year term of incarceration, suspended after five years, followed by ten years of probation. In January, 2007, the defendant began serving his term of probation. Among the standard conditions of his probation was that he not violate any criminal law of this state.

Subsequently, the defendant was arrested following an incident that occurred on April 24, 2007. Following the defendant’s arrest, a probation officer filed a violation of probation motion, form JD-CR-59V, alleging that the defendant had violated a criminal law of this state. In August, 2007, the court held a hearing related to the motion. The defendant did not testify at the hearing. At the hearing, the state presented evidence that, on April 24, 2007, the defendant was outside the home of a seventeen year- old female to whom he had directed comments of a sexual nature. The teenager reported the defendant’s presence to her mother, who was traveling home with a male companion, the victim. When the victim arrived on the scene, he exited his automobile, observed the defendant and spoke with the defendant. After the two men argued with each other, the victim turned to walk away. At that time, the defendant struck the victim in the back of the head, causing significant injuiy. The police were called to the scene. A police officer stopped the defendant’s automobile, which was nearby, and the defendant admitted striking the victim in the head.

At the end of the adjudicative phase of the proceeding, the court found that the defendant, by committing an assault on the victim, committed breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181. During the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the prosecutor argued that, in light of the defendant’s criminal history and assaultive conduct during this incident, a sentence of incarceration for the remaining five years of the defendant’s unexecuted sentence was appropriate. The defendant’s attorney argued that the defendant remained a good risk for probation. The defendant also addressed the court personally, stating that he had acted in self-defense during the incident and that his criminal record was in the past. Following the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the court revoked the defendant’s probation and sentenced the defendant to a term of incarceration of five years, suspended after three years, followed by twenty years of probation. The court also ordered the defendant to undergo sex offender evaluation and treatment. From the judgment revoking probation, the defendant appeals.

Several days after the court rendered its decision in the violation of probation case, the defendant appeared in court to respond to the criminal charge underlying the violation of probation charge. Specifically, on August 28, 2007, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of breach of the peace in the second degree. That charge arose from the defendant’s conduct in striking the victim on April 24, 2007. The court accepted the defendant’s plea and subsequently imposed sentence related thereto. The defendant has not appealed from that judgment.

I

First, the defendant claims that the court revoked his probation on the basis of a clearly erroneous finding of fact, which is that he had committed the crime of assault in the third degree. We reject the defendant’s claim.

At the conclusion of the adjudicative phase of the proceeding, the corut stated in relevant part: “The court finds that the defendant had notice of the special conditions of his probation as well as the regular or normal conditions of his probation, specifically, that he not violate any laws of the state of Connecticut .... And the court finds, based upon all of the credible evidence presented here today that the defendant did, on April 24,2007, assault [the victim], and violated [General Statutes §] 53a-181, breach of [the] peace in the second degree, which reads that a person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with the intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person assaults or strikes another. So . . . there is sufficient evidence for this court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the state has met its burden of proof that the defendant did violate that condition of his probation.” The next day, when the court set forth its decision in the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the court referred to the fact that the defendant had been arrested on an “assault charge.” The court stated, inter alia, that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation “by committing an assault in the third degree.”

The defendant argues that the court based its disposition solely on a finding that he had committed the crime of assault in the third degree. The defendant argues that this was improper because, during the adjudicative phase of the proceeding, the court had made a finding of criminal liability that was “wholly unrelated to any assault statute.” The defendant also asserts that a finding that he had committed the crime of assault in the third degree was clearly erroneous.

The defendant’s claim is based on a flawed interpretation of the court’s decision. Following the adjudicative phase of the proceeding, the court unambiguously determined that the defendant had violated the breach of the peace statute as a result of his assaultive conduct on April 24, 2007. In the adjudicative phase of a probation revocation proceeding, “[a] trial court . . . makes a factual determination of whether a condition of probation has been violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Payne, 88 Conn. App. 656, 659-60, 870 A.2d 1159, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 903, 876 A.2d 13 (2005). The defendant does not claim that the court’s determination that he violated the breach of the peace statute was clearly erroneous or that, as a matter of law, it did not constitute a sufficient ground on which to revoke his probation. Insofar as the defendant asserts that the court, in the dispositional phase, did not base its revocation on this finding of criminal conduct, there is no merit to his claim.

During the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the court clear ly referred to the fact that the defendant had committed an assault. The court did not explain that the defendant’s assaultive conduct was the basis of its finding that the defendant had committed breach of the peace in the second degree, as it had done during the adjudicative phase of the proceedings. We, however, interpret the court’s statements in light of its unambiguous findings in the adjudicative phase of the proceeding that the defendant’s assaultive conduct was, in fact, the basis of its determination that the defendant had violated the breach of the peace statute. Contrary to the defendant’s argument, this determination was intricately and logically related to the court’s finding that the defendant had assaulted the victim on April 24, 2007. As the court correctly explained in its decision, a person may commit breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of § 53a-181 (a) (2) by “assaulting] or striking] another.”

Accordingly, the defendant’s claim that the court abused its discretion in the dispositional phase of the probation revocation proceeding because its revocation was not based on its finding of criminal liability in the adjudicative phase of the proceeding is without merit.

II

The second and third claims raised by the defendant relate to his claim of self-defense that he asserted during the probation revocation hearing. The defendant claims that the court improperly failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law as to whether he had acted in self-defense during the incident underlying the violation of probation charge. The defendant also claims that the court improperly failed to permit him to review and to present medical records of the victim that, he argues, supported his claim of self-defense. We agree with the state’s assertion that those claims have been rendered moot by the criminal proceeding that followed the revocation of probation proceeding.

As stated previously, following the violation of probation proceeding, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of breach of the peace in the second degree in connection with his conduct toward the victim on April 24, 2007. The court accepted the defendant’s plea and sentenced the defendant in accordance with the plea. The defendant has not appealed from that judgment of conviction.

“Mootness implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, presents a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. . . . For a case to be justiciable, it is required, among other things, that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute .... [T]he requirement of an actual controversy ... is premised upon the notion that courts are called upon to determine existing controversies, and thus may not be used as a vehicle to obtain advisory judicial opinions on points of law.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. T.D., 286 Conn. 353, 361, 944 A.2d 288 (2008).

Several relevant holdings guide our analysis. In State v. Singleton, 274 Conn. 426, 439, 876 A.2d 1 (2005), our Supreme Court held: “Where, subsequent to a finding of violation of probation, a defendant is criminally convicted for the same conduct underlying the violation of probation, his appeal from that judgment of violation of probation is rendered moot because there is no longer any live controversy about whether he engaged in the conduct for which his probation was violated.”

InState v. T.D., supra, 286 Conn. 366-67, our Supreme Court held: “[A] conviction following a jury verdict is indistinguishable from a conviction following a guilty plea or Alford plea for purposes of eliminating any controversy over whether the criminal conduct underlying a violation of probation has occurred. If a defendant has been convicted of criminal conduct, following either a guilty plea, Alford plea or a jury trial, and the defendant does not challenge that conviction by timely appealing it, then the conviction conclusively establishes that the defendant engaged in that criminal conduct. An appeal challenging a finding of violation of probation based on that conduct is, therefore, moot.”

In State v. Preston, 286 Conn. 367, 380, 944 A.2d 276 (2008), our Supreme Court held that an occurrence that renders moot a claim arising from the adjudicative phase of a revocation of probation proceeding does not render moot a claim arising from the dispositional phase of the proceeding. The court explained: “Although a finding of abuse of discretion during the dispositional phase will be rare when there is no live controversy as to whether the defendant violated his probation by committing a criminal offense, affirmance of the trial court’s judgment is not a foregone conclusion. We conclude that, when the defendant has raised a claim that the trial court abused its discretion in rendering its judgment during the dispositional phase, practical relief is available even when there is no live controversy as to whether the defendant committed the underlying offense and, therefore, the claim is not moot.” Id., 381-82.

The court, in the adjudicative phase, properly determined whether the defendant had violated a condition of his probation, as alleged, by engaging in criminal conduct. The court found that the defendant had engaged in criminal conduct by committing breach of the peace in the second degree. Having found that the defendant was criminally liable for his conduct, the court turned to the dispositional phase of the proceeding. The dispositional phase of the proceeding has a distinct purpose narrowly defined by law. “In the dispo-sitional phase, [i]f a violation is found, a court must next determine whether probation should be revoked because the beneficial aspects of probation are no longer being served.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 375-76.

In accordance with the case law set forth previously, a claim by the defendant related to the adjudicative phase of the probation revocation proceeding is rendered moot by his subsequent conviction arising out of that same conduct, from which he has not appealed. In contrast, a claim by the defendant related to the dispositional phase of the probation revocation proceeding is not rendered moot by his subsequent conviction. We thoroughly have reviewed the defendant’s claims and the analysis of those claims. Although they are couched as relating to the dispositional phase of the proceeding, we conclude that, in substance, the claims are nothing more than challenges to the court’s finding in the adjudicative phase that he had engaged in criminal conduct. The defendant’s claims are related to his theory of self-defense and can only be viewed as an attempt to challenge whether he had engaged in criminal conduct on April 24, 2007, not whether the court abused its discretion in the dispositional phase of the proceeding. Following the defendant’s guilty plea in the criminal case, there is no live controversy as to whether he violated his probation on April 24, 2007, by committing a criminal offense, breach of the peace in the second degree. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the defendant’s claims relating to the adjudicative phase of the probation revocation proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with respect to the defendant’s second and third claims.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The court stated its decision orally following both phases of the revocation of probation proceeding; its decision appears within the certified transcript of the proceeding filed by the defendant. The record, however, does not contain a signed transcript of the court’s decision as is required by Practice Book § 64-1 (a). The record reflects that the defendant filed a motion, pursuant to Practice Book § 64-1 (b), providing notice that the court had not filed a signed transcript of its oral decision. Although the appellate clerk forwarded the notice to the trial court, the record does not reflect that the trial court complied with Practice Book § 64-1 (a). Also, the record does not reflect that the defendant took any additional steps to obtain a decision in compliance with Practice Book § 64-1 (a). Pursuant to Practice Book § 61-10, it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide this court with an adequate record for review.
      Despite the absence of a signed transcript of the court’s oral decision, our ability to review the claims raised on appeal is not hampered because we are able readily to identify in the transcript of the proceeding a sufficiently detailed and concise statement of the court’s findings. See State v. Brunette, 92 Conn. App. 440, 446, 886 A.2d 427 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 902, 891 A.2d 2 (2006).

       We view the defendant’s claim as being related to the dispositional phase of the probation revocation proceeding. Specifically, the defendant claims that during the dispositional phase, the court improperly relied on a finding of criminal liability that was not made during the adjudicative phase of the proceeding.
      The defendant also asserts that if the court found that he had committed assault in the third degree, such a finding was clearly erroneous. There are several problems with this aspect of the claim. First, the defendant has not attempted to demonstrate, in his analysis of the claim, that the evidence did not support such a finding. Second, we interpret the court’s decision as resting on the defendant’s violation of the statute on breach of the peace in the second degree. Third, to the extent that the court found that the defendant had engaged in assaultive conduct as a basis for its finding that he had committed breach of the peace in the second degree, we do not review such finding for the reasons explained in part II of this opinion.

       See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed 2d 162 (1970).


author: ALVORD, J.

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MAKEE R.

    (AC 28946)
    DiPentima, Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
    Argued May 20—officially
    released September 22, 2009

      John R. Gulash, Jr., for the appellant (defendant).

      Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state’s attorney, and Cornelius P. Kelly, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

       In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of sexual abuse and the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline to use the defendant's full name or to identify the victim or others through whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e.

   Opinion

ALVORD, J.

The defendant, Makee R., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that he was denied a fair trial before a neutral judge in violation of the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. Specifically, he argues that the court’s jury instructions improperly invaded the province of the fact finder, bolstered the credibility of the victim, diluted the state’s burden of proof and prejudiced his case. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant is the minor, paternal uncle of the victim. During the time in question, he lived in his parents’ home with his mother, father, grandmother, two sisters and two brothers. From January, 2003, to August, 2005, the victim was a frequent guest in the defendant’s home where she received before and after school care from her grandmother, the defendant’s mother.

Almost every weekday, the victim’s mother dropped the victim off at the defendant’s house before school. The victim walked to and from school with the defendant’s younger brother, who attended the same facility. She remained at the defendant’s house in the care of her grandmother until late in the evening when she was picked up by one of her parents, usually her father. Occasionally, the victim also spent weekends at the defendant’s house. While in the defendant’s home, the victim spent most of her time with her grandmother and the defendant’s younger brother, who was closest to her in age.

The victim first revealed the sexual assault to her mother in August, 2005. At trial, the victim testified with specificity about two instances of sexual abuse. The first incident occurred in the defendant’s upstairs bedroom. The victim explained that the defendant told her to go upstairs, where he locked the door and made her perform fellatio. She also testified that a second, similar incident took place downstairs in the basement bedroom of the defendant’s older brother while the defendant played a pornographic video. In addition to her verbal explanation, the victim demonstrated for the jury what happened on both occasions using anatomically correct dolls.

When questioned, the victim could not recount a time when she was left alone with the defendant or remember the general time frame during which either incident occurred. The state’s expert witness, a school psychologist who did not examine the victim personally, testified that it is typical for children to have difficulty pinpointing or sequencing events and that young children often ran together similar events that happened on more than one occasion.

The defendant’s trial strategy was to undermine the victim’s credibility and to establish that the sexual assault could not have taken place because the defendant and the victim were never alone together. The defendant’s brothers testified that their mother never left the victim by herself in the house. Various members of the defendant’s family stated that the defendant usually played baseball or basketball after school and was not often at home. They maintained that the defendant did not care for the company of children and was uninterested in playing with the victim. The defendant testified and denied ever having sexual contact with the victim or showing her pornographic materials.

The defendant, his mother and his two brothers also testified that the basement bedroom of the defendant’s older brother was always locked. They contended that only the defendant’s older brother and mother had keys to that room and that the defendant’s older brother did not allow anyone in his room. The defendant’s family insisted that the only videocassette recorder (VCR) in the house was in the living room and that the defendant’s older brother did not have a VCR, a digital videodisc player, a computer or pornographic movies in his bedroom. During their investigation, the police department did not attempt to determine whether there was a VCR or pornographic material in the basement bedroom of the defendant’s house.

The defendant was convicted on both counts and sentenced to a term of twenty-five years incarceration, suspended after fifteen years, and twenty-five years of probation.

The defendant now alleges several errors in the instructions given to the jury. First, he takes issue with a portion of the instructions to the venire panels prior to the start of evidence in which the court described the procedure for sentencing should the jury return a verdict of guilty. He argues that the court’s explanation of its sentencing process put extraneous information before potential jurors, misled them as to their role and “created a mindset and framework for a finding of guilt.” Second, the defendant contends that the court’s reference to the complaining witness as a “victim” in a case in which the defense was that no crime had been committed prejudiced him by setting “up an expectation and filter for overvaluing evidence consistent with guilt . . . .”

Third, the defendant takes issue with the sympathy charge the court delivered prior to the start of jury deliberations: “I mentioned earlier about sympathy and deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. You should not concern yourselves with the punishment to be meted out in the event of a conviction. Nor should you be influenced by any sympathy for the accused, the family of the accused or for any other person who might in any way be affected by your decision. In other words, your feelings are not evidence.” The defendant points out that the sympathy instruction given by the court omitted a warning against sympathizing with “the complainant or her family” that he had requested. He argues that the version delivered by the court reinforced infirmities in the instructions given to the venire panels.

Finally, the defendant objects to the court’s final charge regarding the testimony of children: “Now, in a case involving the sexual abuse of a very young child that the child’s capacity to recall specifics and the state’s concomitant ability to provide exactitude in an information are very limited. The state can only provide what it has. This court will not impose a degree of certitude as to date, time and place that will render prosecutions of those who sexually abuse children impossible. To do so would have us establish by judicial fiat a class of crimes committable with impunity.” He maintains that the child testimony instruction, which was requested by the state and delivered prior to the start of jury deliberations, bolstered the victim’s testimony and conveyed an expectation of a conviction in a case in which the credibility of the victim was critical to the state’s case. The defendant asserts that when viewed cumulatively, the court’s jury instructions implied that a crime had been committed, invaded the province of the jury and violated his right to an impartial proceeding. We are not persuaded.

The defendant failed to object to the instructions at trial and now seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). Under Golding, “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original.) Id., 239-40.

“ [T]he first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wright, 114 Conn. App. 448, 458, 969 A.2d 827 (2009). The defendant has met his burden with respect to reviewability. His allegations of impropriety are of constitutional magnitude, and the trial transcript provides a sufficient record for review. Thus, resolution of the defendant’s appeal turns on whether the court’s instructions to the jury amounted to a clear constitutional violation that clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial. We conclude that they did not.

It is well settled that jury instructions are to be reviewed in their entirety. State v. Collazo, 113 Conn. App. 651, 668, 967 A.2d 597, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 904, 976 A.2d 705 (2009). “When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “In determining whether it was . . . reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court’s instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Griffin, 251 Conn. 671, 714, 741 A.2d 913 (1999). Individual instructions also are not “to be judged in artificial isolation . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Instead, “[t]he test to be applied ... is whether the charge ... as a whole, presents the case to the jury so that no injustice will result.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

Even though we review this claim under the third prong of Golding, we note that “[w]hen the principal participant in the trial whose function it is to protect the rights of his client does not deem an issue harmful enough to press in the trial court, the appellate claim that the same issue clearly deprived the defendant of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial . . . is seriously undercut.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shelly, 78 Conn. App. 513, 515-16, 827 A.2d 759, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910, 832 A.2d 74 (2003).

With respect to the preliminary instructions, we agree that “[ijnformation regarding the consequences of a verdict is . . . irrelevant to the jury’s task”; Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 579, 114 S. Ct. 2419, 129 L. Ed. 2d 459 (1994); and that “providing jurors [with] sentencing information invites them to ponder matters that are not within their province, distracts them from their factfinding responsibilities, and creates a strong possibility of confusion.” Id. However, we find that the jury was “fully and properly instructed at the critical time, after all the evidence and after the arguments of counsel”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Marra, 222 Conn. 506, 537, 610 A.2d 1113 (1992); and that the preliminary instructions did not affect the overall fairness and integrity of the proceeding as a whole.

First, the court prefaced and concluded each description to the venire panels of the sentencing process by emphatically stating that sentencing is not the function of the jury and that the primary function of the jury is to determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Second, the court properly advised each venire panel regarding the presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Finally, the court’s preliminary instructions properly described the jury’s role as fact finder.

Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the improper “suggestion” went uncorrected and was compounded by the sympathy instruction is without merit; the court did not revisit or reiterate its explanation of the sentencing procedure in its final instruction to the jury. Instead, the court stated: “[Y]ou are the sole judges of the facts. It is your duty to find the facts. . . . My actions during the trial and ruling on the motions or objections by counsel, or in any comments that might have been made to counsel, or any questions I might have asked of a witness, or in setting forth the law in these instructions are not to be taken by you as any indications whatsoever of my opinion as to how you should determine the issues of fact.” In short, the mere suggestion of risk that “the jury would believe that the responsibility for finally determining the facts rest[s] elsewhere,” as argued by the defendant, does not amount to a reasonable possibility that the jury was misled or constitute a clear deprivation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

The defendant’s argument with respect to the final jury instruction is also unavailing. “The prevailing view ... is that a trial judge retains discretion to determine whether the jury should receive a special instruction with respect to the credibility of a young witness, and, if so, the nature of that instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 567-68, 560 A.2d 426 (1989). In the present case, the court exercised its discretion. Whether the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated “depends upon the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vasquez, 182 Conn. 242, 247, 438 A.2d 424 (1980).

The court’s final instructions spanned twenty-two pages of transcript and adequately explained the charges the defendant faced, the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence and the jury’s role as fact finder. The court counseled the jury to consider a number of factors in deciding which testimony to believe and explained that expert testimony is not binding on the jury and could be disregarded “either in whole or in part.” Additionally, the final charge to the jury did not misstate the law. “The general rule in Connecticut is that [t]ime is not an essential ingredient of the crime of [sexual assault].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saraceno, 15 Conn. App. 222, 236, 545 A.2d 1116, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 823, 824, 552 A.2d 431, 432 (1988), quoting State v. Horton, 132 Conn. 276, 277, 43 A.2d 744 (1945). As a result, we believe the jury reasonably understood the law, scope and gravity of its task.

We conclude that the jury instructions, read as a whole, did not clearly violate the defendant’s constitutional rights or clearly deprive him of a fair trial as required for reversal under Golding.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when such person ... (2) engages in sexual intercourse with another person and such other person is under thirteen years of age and the actor is more than two years older than such person . . . .”

       General Statutes § 53-21 (a) provides in relevant part: “Any person who ... (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child . . . shall be guilty of ... a class B felony . . .

       The defendant also alleges a violation of article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut. He does not claim, however, additional protections thereunder or brief the claim separately. Consequently, we deem his state constitutional claim abandoned. See State v. Simpson, 286 Conn. 634, 651 n.17, 945 A.2d 449 (2008).

       On November 22, 2006, the court instructed: “Let me just comment to you about what your duties are if you are selected to be a juror in this case. The primary function of a jury in a criminal case is to determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty of any one or all of the crimes with which the accused is charged.
      “It is never the function of the jury to consider or speculate over what the consequences of what a finding of guilt would be. When a jury returns a verdict of guilty in a criminal case, the judge presiding over that trial will continue that case for what we call a sentencing hearing. That usually is continued for a period of six or eight weeks; when the six or eight weeks has expired, the judge will have a report to consider .... The judge will hear from the prosecuting attorney, and if there are victims that wish to be heard, the victims are entitled to be heard at the sentencing hearing. The court will hear from the defense attorney, the court will hear from the accused himself, if he wishes to be heard personally, and any other person that should be heard from, and then the court decides what is a fair, and just, and legal sentence. That is not the function of the jury. ” Similar explanations were given to the venire panels that convened on November 21 and 29, 2006.

       To support his claim, the defendant cites the reference to “victims” made by the court during the preliminary instructions discussed in footnote 5: “[A]t [the] sentencing hearing the judge hears from the state, hears from the defense, hears from any witnesses, including victims . . . Similar statements were made to the other two venire panels.

       The sympathy charge requested by the defendant is similar to the sample instruction available on the Connecticut judicial branch Internet site. The charge requested by the defendant reads: “In deciding whether the accused is guilty or not guilty, you should not concern yourselves with the punishment to be meted out in the event of a conviction. Nor should you be influenced by any sympathy for the accused, the accused’s family, the complainant or her family or for any other person who might be in any way affected by your decision.”

       The charge was taken directly from State v. Saraceno, 15 Conn. App. 222, 237, 545 A.2d 1116, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 823, 824, 552 A.2d 431, 432 (1988). We agree with the defendant that it was not intended to be used as a jury instruction.

       The defendant also invites us to review his claims under our inherent supervisory authority and the plain error doctrine. We decline to do so. The plain error doctrine and our supervisory powers are reserved for extraordinary circumstances that are not implicated by the present case. See Smith v. Andrews, 289 Conn. 61, 79, 959 A.2d 597 (2008).

       See State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 462, 835 A.2d 503 (2003) (“[c]entrai to a defendant’s right to a fair trial is the right to have issues of fact and credibility decided by the jury”), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004).

       In the present case, the defendant had ample opportunity to object to both the preliminary and the final instructions. Instead, he remained silent while the court repeated its description of the sentencing process on three separate occasions to three separate venire panels. Likewise, the defendant did not take issue with the court’s final charge, although he had two opportunities to do so outside the presence of the jury, including directly after the charge conference was held and directly after the charge was delivered.

       On November 21, 2006, the court instructed the venire panel as follows: “[Y]our duties as a juror . . . are to determine whether or not [the defendant] is guilty or not guilty of either one or both of these charges. It is never, ever the duty or the responsibility or the concern of a juror, individually or as a group, to contemplate or worry about or speculate as to the consequences of a finding of guilty. . . . That is not the function of the jury.” Substantially similar instructions were issued on November 22 and 29, 2006.

       On November 21,22 and 29, respectively, the court instructed the venire panels as follows: “[Y]our job includes the responsibility to evaluate the believability of everyone that testifies before you”; “I should comment to you about another responsibility that you have, and that is the responsibility to evaluate the testimony of everyone who will testify before you”; and, “[a]s a juror in a criminal case, you have the right to accept all of a witness’ testimony, you have a right to reject all of a witness’ testimony, and you have the right to accept some and reject other portions of any witness’ testimony. You have the obligation, you have the duty to evaluate each and every witness’ testimony by the same standards.”

       We also note that the defendant’s initial request to charge, filed on December 8,2006, after the jury had been selected, did not contain a request to address and correct the court’s preinstruction description of the sentencing process.

       Furthermore, the court’s use of the term “victim” is not comparable to the sevenfy-six similar references that warranted reversal of the judgment in State v. Cortes, 84 Conn. App. 70, 851 A.2d 1230 (2004), aff'd, 276 Conn. 241,885 A.2d 153 (2005). The court also precisely referred to the complainant in its final instruction: “The state has offered evidence of statements made by the complainant in the case concerning the alleged crimes, and these statements were admitted into evidence. This evidence is admitted solely to corroborate the complainant’s testimony in court. ... To the extent that the complainant has been consistent in what she said, you may find her testimony in court to be corroborated or supported.”

       The court instructed the jury as follows: “Was the witness able to see or hear or know the things about which the witness testified? How well was the witness able to recall and describe those things? What was the witness’ manner while testifying? And, did the witness have any interest in the outcome of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case? How reasonable was the witness’ testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case? Was the witness’ testimony contradicted by what the witness has said or done at another time or by the testimony of other witnesses or by other evidence? Was the witness’ testimony corroborated by any evidence presented in the case?”


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. BRENDA J. LARSEN
    (AC 29833)
    Flyim, C. J., and Alvord and Peters, Js.

      Argued May 18
    officially released September 22, 2009

      Martha Hansen, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      James A. Killen, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state’s attorney, and Vincent J. Dooley, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

ALVORD, J.

The defendant, Brenda J. Larsen, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of two counts of criminal violation of a protective order under General Statutes § 53a-223 and one count of criminal violation of a restraining order under General Statutes § 53a-223b. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the requisite intent to violate the orders. We disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The court reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant and Charles Larsen (Larsen), then eighty-one years old, were married on January 14, 2002. The defendant is more than thirty years younger than Larsen. Beginning in 2006, the relationship deteriorated. In November, 2006, the defendant was arrested for assaulting Larsen. A protective order was issued on November 29,2006, prohibiting the defendant from having any contact in any manner with Larsen. That order was modified on December 7, 2006. The modified protective order had less restrictive terms, requiring the defendant to refrain from threatening, harassing or assaulting Larsen rather than barring all contact with him. In bold capital letters at the bottom of the modified protective order is the statement: “This order remains in effect until final disposition of the criminal case or until further order of the court.”

In February, 2007, Larsen brought an action to dissolve the marriage and sought a restraining order at that time. In the sworn affidavit attached to the application, he described incidents in which the defendant physically and verbally abused him. The restraining order was granted ex parte and subsequently modified after a hearing. The modified restraining order, issued on February 20, 2007, prohibited the defendant from having any contact in any manner with Larsen and provided that it would terminate on August 20, 2007.

On May 12, 2007, Harrison Formiglio, an officer with the Norwich police department, was dispatched to Larsen’s residence. Larsen indicated that the defendant had just left his residence after a somewhat confrontational conversation. Formiglio confirmed with police headquarters that there was an outstanding protective order and an outstanding restraining order against the defendant. When Formiglio contacted the defendant, she indicated that she was aware that she was not to have any contact with Larsen but that she had not seen him in several months. The defendant was arrested at that time for violation of both orders (May incident).

Following the defendant’s arrest, a second protective order was issued on July 6, 2007, again prohibiting any contact in any manner with Larsen and also containing the statement that it remained in effect until disposition of the criminal case or until further order of the court. On September 16, 2007, Francis Rugg and Andrew Rosedaie, officers with the Norwich police department, were dispatched to Larsen’s residence in response to his complaint that the defendant had violated a court order by making two telephone calls to him that day. Rugg checked the caller identification feature on Larsen’s telephone and placed a call to the displayed number. The individual who answered identified herself as the defendant and admitted that she had telephoned Larsen. After verifying that there was an outstanding protective order, Rugg arrested the defendant for the violation of that order (September incident).

The charges for the violation of a protective order and the violation of a restraining order in connection with the May incident and the charge for the violation of a protective order in connection with the September incident were tried to the court on January 8, 2008. Larsen testified but was somewhat confused as to the dates of the incidents and the behavior of the defendant on those dates. The three officers who had responded to the complaints in May and September, 2007, also testified. After the state rested, the defendant took the stand. On cross-examination, she admitted that she went to Larsen’s residence on May 12, 2007, and that she was aware that she was to have no contact with him. With respect to the telephone calls she had made to him on September 16, 2007, the defendant testified that he had called her first and that she responded by making two calls to him. She further testified that she thought the court order had expired after six months and believed that she was not in violation of the restraining order.

During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that the defendant responded to Larsen’s telephone calls believing that the protective order had expired. Counsel argued that the violation was not deliberate and that the court should find her not guilty as charged. The state responded that it was clear that with respect to the May incident, the defendant was aware that she was to have no contact with Larsen. With respect to the September incident, the state argued that her testimony was not credible. The court noted that there were several court orders, two protective orders and a restraining order, and that it did not find her testimony credible. The court found that the state had proved the charged violations beyond a reasonable doubt and found the defendant guilty on all three counts. The defendant was sentenced on March 5, 2008, and this appeal followed.

The defendant claims that with respect to the charge arising from the September incident, there was insufficient evidence to convict her because she was confused as to the duration of the order in place at that time. She argues that she did not possess the requisite intent to behave in a way that violated the protective order because she mistakenly believed that it had expired. Further, the defendant argues that the cumulative evidence was insufficient for the court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she violated the orders in place at the time of the May incident and the September incident because Charles Larsen’s testimony at trial was confusing and inconsistent with the testimony of the officers as to the dates and the behavior of the defendant on those dates.

The standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled. We apply a two-pronged test. First, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the conclusion of the trier of fact. Second, we determine whether on the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the fact finder reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn. App. 739, 748, 890 A.2d 591 (2006), appeal dismissed, 281 Conn. 817, 917 A.2d 959 (2007); State v. Cais, 59 Conn. App. 186, 188-89, 754 A.2d 858 (2000).

“[I]n viewing evidence which could yield contrary inferences, the [tiier of fact] is not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and is not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence. The rule is that the [trier of fact’s] function is to draw whatever inferences from evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jagat, 111 Conn. App. 173, 177, 958 A.2d 206 (2008).

To prove a charge of criminal violation of a protective order under § 53a-223, the state must demonstrate that a protective order was issued against the defendant in accordance with General Statutes §§ 46b-38c (e) or 54-lk, and it must demonstrate the terms of the order and the manner in which it was violated. State v. Hasfal, 94 Conn. App. 741, 744-45, 894 A.2d 372 (2006). In the present case, with respect to the September incident, the defendant does not challenge that she was subject to a valid protective order or that making telephone calls to Larsen would be a violation of the no contact provision of that order. Rather, the defendant claims that the court could not find that she had the requisite intent to violate the order because she believed that it had expired at the time the calls were made.

Regarding the mental element of the crime, the violation of a protective order statute is not a specific intent crime. All that is necessary is a general intent that the defendant intended to perform the activities that constituted the violation. Id. Thus, the state needed to prove that the defendant intended to contact Larsen by telephone and that this act resulted from intentional conduct rather than by accident or mistake. See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 77-78, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269, 127 S. Ct. 1491, 167 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2007).

Although the defendant testified that she believed that the protective order had expired by the time of the September incident, the court was not required to credit that testimony. In fact, the court expressly stated that it did not find the defendant’s testimony credible. This court will not revisit credibility determinations. Whether a defendant’s testimony is believable is a question solely for the fact finder. It is the absolute right and responsibility of the fact finder to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Slate v. Hasfal, supra, 94 Conn. App. 746.

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s argument on appeal, there was sufficient evidence from which the court reasonably could have found that the defendant intended to violate the protective order and the restraining order on May 12, 2007, and the protective order on September 16, 2007. With respect to the May incident, the defendant admitted that she had been at Larsen’s residence and that she knew she was not supposed to have any contact with him. Although Larsen was somewhat confused as to dates and the exact behavior of the defendant at specific times, his testimony was corroborative of Formiglio’s testimony as to the events of that day. Formiglio, as the responding officer, testified that he was dispatched to Larsen’s residence on May 12, 2007, and he recounted his conversation with Larsen. Formiglio also testified that he contacted the defendant, and he recounted her statements, including her initial declaration that she had not seen Larsen in several months. The date of the incident, if unclear in Larsen’s testimony, was established by For-miglio.

With respect to the September incident, two officers testified that they responded to Larsen’s complaint on September 16, 2007. The date of the incident was established through their testimony, even if Larsen was somewhat confused at the time of trial. The officers recounted Larsen’s statements to them at that time, and one of the officers, utilizing the caller identification feature on Larsen’s telephone, telephoned the defendant from Larsen’s residence. The defendant answered the call, identified herself and admitted that she had telephoned Larsen twice that day. Even though she claimed that she believed the court order had expired, there were two outstanding protective orders at that time. The first protective order issued on November 29, 2006, and modified on December 7,2006, and the second protective order issued on July 6, 2007, expressly provided that they remained in effect until the final disposition of the criminal proceedings or until further order of the court.

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the conclusion of the court as the trier of fact, we conclude that it had sufficient evidence from which it could determine that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant understood the terms of the protective and restraining orders and, with the requisite intent, violated those orders.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       General Statutes § 53a-223 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of criminal violation of a protective order when an order . . . has been issued against such person, and such person violates such order.”

       General Statutes § 53a-223b (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of criminal violation of a restraining order when ... a restraining order has been issued against such person . . . and . . . such person, having knowledge of the terms of the order . . . does not stay away from a person or place in violation of the order . . . [or] contacts a person in violation of the order . . . .”

       The court stated that there were three protective orders. It was referring to' the first protective order issued on November 29, 2006, the modified protective order issued on December 7, 2006, and the second protective order issued on July 6, 2007.

       “General intent is the term used to define the requisite mens rea for a crime that has no stated mens rea; the term refers to whether a defendant intended deliberate, conscious or purposeful action, as opposed to causing a prohibited result through accident, mistake, carelessness, or absent-mindedness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Charles, 78 Conn. App. 125, 131, 826 A.2d 1172, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 908, 832 A.2d 73 (2003).

       Although the modified protective order in place at the time of the May incident did not prohibit all contact with Larsen, it did prohibit the defendant from “threatening” or “harassing” him. “[A] family violence protective order serves notice to a defendant that any conduct on [the defendant’s] part directed to the named victim that has the reasonably foreseeable effect of harassing or threatening [the victim] is proscribed.” State v. Charles, 78 Conn. App. 125, 136-37, 826 A.2d 1172, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 908, 832 A.2d 73 (2003). The term “harass” means “to annoy persistently ... to create an unpleasant or hostile situation ... by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct . . . .” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed. 2005).
      The court reasonably could have concluded that the defendant “harassed” Larsen on May 12,2007, in violation of the modified protective order, because (1) there was a restraining order in place that prohibited all contact with him, (2) his affidavit attached to the application for that restraining order claimed that the defendant previously had physically and verbally abused him, (3) the defendant and Larsen had a somewhat confrontational conversation, and (4) Larsen contacted the police department to report the incident.

       The restraining order, issued at the time Larsen instituted divorce proceedings, had expired. That order was issued on February 20, 2007, and expired on August 20, 2007. The defendant, therefore, was correct that one of the court orders had expired by the time of the September incident. She was not charged with or convicted, however, of violating the expired order for the September incident.