Campbell v. Porter

212 Conn.App. 377

275 A.3d 684

Thedress CAMPBELL

v.Maurice PORTER et al.

AC 43753

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 30, 2021

Officially released May 10, 2022

Kirk D. Tavtigian, Jr., Farmington, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Wesley S. Spears, Hartford, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

David R. Roth, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Aaron S. Bayer, Hartford, for the appellees (defendant city of Hartford et al.).

Bright, C. J., and Elgo and Bear, Js.

BRIGHT, C. J.

The plaintiff, Thedress Campbell, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after a jury verdict in part in favor of the defendants, Maurice Porter, the city of Hartford (city), Officer Omar Jones, and Shiloh Baptist Church (church).¹ On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the jury erred in returning a defendants’ verdict on his false arrest claim against Jones and the city, (2) the court erred in striking his civil conspiracy claim against all of the defendants, and (3) the jury erred in not awarding him punitive damages despite returning a plaintiff's verdict on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Porter and the church.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, as reasonably could have been found by the jury, and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff was a decades long member of the church. As a member of the church, he served on the church's board of trustees and as the church's property manager, led Sunday school services, became a deacon, and participated in the church's philanthropic efforts, among other acts of service to the church.

In 2014, the church appointed Porter as its new pastor. Initially, the plaintiff and Porter got along, but their relationship soon soured. Shortly after Porter took over as pastor, he removed the plaintiff from his role as the church's property manager because Porter had concerns about how the plaintiff was carrying out his duties. Thereafter, the plaintiff began questioning the validity of certain relocation expenses that Porter had claimed for his move from South Carolina to Hartford. The plaintiff eventually sent an e-mail about Porter's relocation expenses to another member of the church, and that e-mail was later forwarded to Porter. Porter then held a meeting of the church's deacons, at which he read the plaintiff's e-mail aloud to those in attendance. Porter did not initially reveal who had written the e-mail, but the plaintiff, who was at the meeting, revealed himself as the author after the e-mail was read. One of the deacons then recommended that the plaintiff be removed as a deacon, at which point the plaintiff voluntarily resigned from that post.

After the e-mail incident, the plaintiff's relationship with Porter and the church worsened. Church leadership made repeated efforts to reconcile with the plaintiff, but those efforts were unsuccessful and, eventually, the church leaders made the decision to dismiss the plaintiff from the church. To that end, on February 2, 2016, church leadership sent the plaintiff a letter which stated in relevant part:

"Dear Brother Campbell,

"Please be advised that in accordance with Section 7.3, Dismissal of Members, of the Amended and Restated Constitution and Bylaws of [the church], its leadership has exercised rights granted to it under this provision and hereby has DISMISSED you from membership of [the church] for: continually disregarding the [c]hurch's authority and for creating contention and strife.

"Accordingly, pursuant to state law concerning trespassing, you are NOT allowed on any premises owned or operated by [the church] and you are not allowed to attend any function or activity held or hosted by [the church]. Any violation of this law will immediately be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authority and the appropriate civil remedy will be sought. You will only be allowed on any premises owned or operated by [the church] or any function or activity held or hosted by [the church] provided you have sought and received written consent to do so. All requests for permission should be made to the church office in writing prior to whatever event you wish to attend and we will respond accordingly. ..." The letter was signed by Porter and Bradley Jones, the chairman of the deacons.

The letter was sent, in part, at the suggestion of Douglas Antuna, the faith based community service officer for the Hartford Police Department (department). In that capacity, Antuna served as the liaison between the department and the churches that are located in the city. While serving in that role, Antuna became aware of the fraught relationship between the plaintiff and the church, and, after he learned that the church had decided to dismiss the plaintiff as a member, Antuna suggested that the church draft a letter informing the plaintiff of his dismissal and telling him that he was no longer allowed at the church.

The plaintiff received the letter from the church, either by mail or hand delivery, but believed that it was invalid because he had not been dismissed in accordance with the church's bylaws. According to the plaintiff's understanding of the bylaws, the entire congregation was required to vote on the dismissal of a member, and church leadership alone did not have the power to dismiss a member, as it had attempted to do with the letter. The plaintiff then instituted a lawsuit against Porter and the church in an attempt to prevent the church from dismissing him.³

While the plaintiff's lawsuit against Porter and the church was pending, and even though he disputed the church's authority to dismiss him as a member without a vote by the full congregation, the plaintiff stayed away from the church. This decision was driven in part by the plaintiff's concern that "even though I knew I was right, based on the church bylaws and the decisions that we had received, I didn't [want to] take a chance on going into the church for service and having a policeman come into the church ... and escort me out of the church ...." On July 1, 2016, however, before there had been any resolution in his lawsuit challenging his dismissal, the plaintiff attended a friend's funeral at the church. While the plaintiff was sitting in the church sanctuary and waiting for the funeral to begin, he was approached three separate times by different church leaders, each of whom reminded him that he was not allowed at the church without permission and told him that if he wanted to stay at the church for the funeral, he first needed to ask Porter for such permission. The plaintiff repeatedly declined to ask Porter for permission to attend the funeral because he believed that he had a right to be at the church, given his view that the letter dismissing him was invalid. The church leaders then told the plaintiff that if he was not going to ask for Porter's permission, he needed to leave the premises. After the plaintiff ignored those requests, Andre McGuire, the church's assistant pastor, informed him that if he remained at the church without permission, the police would be called. Despite that warning, the plaintiff still refused to leave.

Porter then called the police. He first called Antuna, but, because he was off duty at the time, Antuna told Porter to call the department, which he did. The department then dispatched Jones to the church. While Jones was en route, his supervisor told him that the church had been coordinating with Antuna regarding the plaintiff and that he should call Antuna for more information. Jones then called Antuna, who provided him with additional information about the conflict between the plaintiff and the church. Specifically, Antuna told Jones that the church had voted to dismiss the plaintiff as a member of the church and had given the plaintiff a letter telling him that he had been dismissed from the church and was no longer allowed there.

After he arrived at the scene, Jones spoke with McGuire,⁴ who also explained that the church had voted to dismiss the plaintiff as a member and had sent the plaintiff a letter telling him that he had been dismissed and was no longer allowed at the church. McGuire further told Jones that church officials had repeatedly asked the plaintiff to leave the property but that he had ignored those requests. On the basis of this information, Jones determined that the situation constituted a "criminal trespass call."

Jones then asked the plaintiff to step outside,⁵ which he did. He and the plaintiff had a brief conversation, during which Jones told the plaintiff that he had heard that the plaintiff had received a letter informing him that he was not allowed at the church. The plaintiff admitted to receiving the letter but told Jones that there was a pending legal case between him and the church.⁶ The plaintiff also told Jones that he and his family were longtime members of the church. The plaintiff did, however, concede that several church officials had told him that day that if he did not get Porter's permission to be at the funeral then he could not be at the church and needed to leave. During this conversation, the plaintiff did not tell Jones that he disputed whether the church had the authority to dismiss him or provide any specific details about his lawsuit. Jones also did not ask for such information.

Jones then arrested the plaintiff for criminal trespass. A different officer arrived at the church and transported the plaintiff to the police station, where he was booked and released on his own recognizance. On September 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the criminal trespassing charge, and that motion to dismiss was granted by the court on January 13, 2017.

On July 18, 2017, the plaintiff instituted the underlying action against the four defendants and the Hartford Police Department by way of a thirteen count complaint.⁷ In October, 2017, the plaintiff filed a revised complaint that included two additional counts, bringing...