By Dave Collins
Associated Press
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A Connecticut woman is claiming free speech rights in appealing her conviction for a profanity-laden tirade against a grocery store manager.
Nina Baccala was arrested in 2013, convicted by a jury the following year of misdemeanor breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. Police in Vernon said she became angry at a manager at a local Stop & Shop one night when the manager said it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer and called the manager a variety of expletives.
The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Thursday as it decides whether Baccala's insults are protected by free speech rights under the state constitution and whether her conviction should be overturned.
At issue is the "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights in the state and federal constitutions.
Baccala's lawyer, Damian Gunningsmith, wrote in the appeal that although Baccala called the manager profane names, the insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights under the state constitution. He wrote the exemption under the state constitution is limited to speech that directly challenges another person to fight.
Gunningsmith declined to comment about the case. Baccala could not be reached for comment. There is no phone listing for her, and she did not return messages left for her on Facebook and with Gunningsmith. Public records indicate Baccala lives in the Rockville section of Vernon.
State prosecutor Mitchell Brody wrote in his opposition to the appeal that Baccala's insults were "fighting words" and that the state's breach of peace law allows prosecution for "abusive language."
The "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights dates back to a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Hampshire case. In that case, Walter Chaplinsky was convicted of breach of peace for cursing at a town marshal in Rochester, New Hampshire, and calling him a "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist."
Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was an exemption to free speech rights for "fighting words," which it defined as words "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Gunningsmith wrote in court documents that neither the Connecticut Supreme Court nor the state Appellate Court have ruled how the "fighting words" exception applies under the state constitution. He wrote that free speech rights under the state constitution are more "robust" than those under the federal constitution.
Published: Thu, Nov 10, 2016
