Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-223

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 53a-223 - (Formerly Sec. 53a-110b). Criminal violation of a protective order: Class D or class C felony

(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.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-223

( 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.)

Amended by P.A. 14-0217, S. 122 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2014 Regular Session, eff. 1/1/2015.

Amended by P.A. 14-0173, S. 5 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2014 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2014.

Amended by P.A. 11-0152, S. 11 of the the 2011 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2011.

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 Conn.App. 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 Conn.App. 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 Conn. 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 Conn.App. 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 Conn.App. 399; judgment affirmed, see 307 C. 1.