2024 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 53a - Penal Code
Chapter 952 - Penal Code: Offenses
Section 53a-181k. - 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 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.
