Mary Gormley v. Director, Connecticut State Department of Adult Probation

How later courts describe this case

• holding General Statutes § 53a-83 (a) (3), the harassment by telephone portion of the statute, constitutional
• Turning aside First Amendment and overbreadth challenges to a statute which criminalizes phone calls made with the intent to “harass, annoy or alarm”.
• upholding statute prohibiting telephone harassment because such harassment involves conduct and intrudes on right to privacy
• rejecting first amendment challenge to Connecticut telephone harassment statute in habeas corpus appeal
• fact finder permissibly could consider verbal content of telephone call as evidence of defendant’s intent without infringing on first amendment rights
• first amendment violation not established where speech is not a component of the statutory violation
• § 53a-183 regulates conduct, not mere speech