The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=292

AC37510 - Izzo v. Quinn (Foreclosure of mechanic's lien; "The defendant, Richard Quinn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his four count counterclaim against the plaintiff, Benedetto Izzo, doing business as New Haven Drywall. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in dismissing his counterclaim on the ground that he had failed to join an indispensable or necessary party. We agree, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=291

AC38370 - DeCastro v. Odetah Camping Resort, Inc. (Negligence; "In this wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Adelson Luiz DeCastro, the administrator of the estate of Jose Luiz DeCastro (decedent), appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in accordance with its decision granting a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed by the defendant, Odetah Camping Resort, Inc. The decedent drowned while swimming in a lake abutting the defendant's resort. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in (1) applying the wrong legal standard for proximate cause; and (2) rendering judgment notwithstanding the verdict when the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=290

SC19466 - State v. Ayala (Interfering with officer; certification from Appellate Court; "We consider in this appeal whether allowing the state to amend an information after the commencement of trial to charge additional offenses without good cause constitutes per se reversible error. The state appeals, upon our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of conviction of the defendant, Enrique Ayala, of three counts of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. See State v. Ayala, 154 Conn. App. 631, 656, 106 A.3d 941 (2015). The state contends that, in the absence of prejudice, the trial court's decision to allow a midtrial amendment charging additional offenses was neither an abuse of discretion nor reversible error. We conclude that, although the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to amend the information without good cause to charge additional offenses, that impropriety would not require reversal of the defendant's conviction on the amended charges in the absence of prejudice. We further conclude, however, that the Appellate Court's judgment must be affirmed because the improper amendment was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances of this case.")

AC38394 - State v. Burgos (Sexual assault in first degree; risk of injury to child; aggravated sexual assault of minor; attempt to escape; "The defendant, Christopher Burgos, appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2), one count of aggravated sexual assault of a minor in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70c (a) (1), and, in a separate information, one count of attempt to escape from custody in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-171 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred (1) by not sua sponte ordering pretrial and posttrial competency hearings and canvassing him on his purported right to testify at those hearings; (2) in joining the sexual assault information and the escape information for trial; (3) in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment; and (4) in denying his motion to vacate his convictions for sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm the judgment in part, and we reverse the judgment in part.")

AC36006 - State v. Catchings (Attempt to commit assault in first degree; assault of peace officer; carrying pistol or revolver without permit; sufficiency of evidence; "The defendant, Marcellus Catchings, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt his intent to inflict serious physical injury on another person, as required for a conviction of attempt to commit assault in the first degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38932 - State v. Medina (Capital felony; conspiracy to commit murder; "The defendant, Jose E. Medina, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. 2011) § 53a-54b (7) and General Statutes § 53a-8 (a), and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to consider inculpatory statements in violation of his federal constitutional rights where the record is clear that either (1) the detectives failed to advise the defendant of his Miranda rights prior to their custodial interrogation of him, or (2) the Miranda waiver that the defendant gave was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he was under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC34970 - State v. Connor (Kidnapping first degree; robbery third degree; robbery involving occupied motor vehicle; larceny third degree; determination of competency to stand trial; determination of competency for self-representation; "This case returns to us following a remand by our Supreme Court. On remand, our Supreme Court has directed us to consider whether the trial court improperly determined that the defendant, Jeffrey T. Connor, was competent to represent himself at his criminal trial. State v. Connor, 321 Conn. 350, 375, 138 A.3d 265 (2016). Having considered that question, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant was competent to represent himself. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=293

AC38246 - Heck v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that counsel who represented him in two criminal trials involving town hall burglaries provided ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court…More precisely, the petitioner criticized the performance of trial counsel in failing to argue that the physical transfer of the GPS device to Connecticut and its subsequent use at his two trials were constitutionally impermissible because once the petitioner’s burglary case in New Hampshire was annulled under New Hampshire law sometime after November 12, 2008, any police and court records contained in his case were not disclosable to the public, including Connecticut law enforcement officials. The petitioner argued that he was prejudiced by the use of the GPS device at both trials.")



Connecticut Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=288

Public Act 16-97 makes many changes to the Connecticut Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. A summary of those changes is available. The act is effective July 1, 2017.

Also, many of our law libraries have received the 2016 supplement to Connecticut Limited Liability Company Forms and Practice Manual. Here is the table of contents:

PART I: ORGANIZATION
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Formation and Organization

PART II: OPERATIONS
Chapter 3: The Operating Agreement
Chapter 4: Organization
Chapter 4A: Single-Member LLCs
Chapter 5: Limited Liability Company Capital
Chapter 6: Allocation and Distribution Provisions
Chapter 7: Management Provisions
Chapter 8: Transfer and Buy-Sell Provisions
Chapter 9: Dissolution
Chapter 10: Books, Records, and Accounting

PART III: MISCELLANEOUS
Chapter 11: Reorganization of the LLC
Chapter 12: Doing Interstate Business
Chapter 13: Professional Limited Liability Companies
Chapter 14: State and Local Tax Issues
Chapter 15: Use of LLCs by Exempt Organizations
Chapter 16: Bankruptcy Issues Concerning LLCs


Federal Trade Commission Amends Used Car Rule

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=289

Effective January 27, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission has amended its Used Car Rule, 16 CFR Part 455. Here is the text of the Federal Register Notice, which states that "[t]he Used Car Rule requires dealers to display on used cars offered for sale a window sticker called a ‘Buyers Guide’ containing warranty and other information." For further research, some of our libraries own the National Consumer Law Center's (NCLC) book on Consumer Warranty Law. Also, the NCLC has an explanatory page on the amended Used Car Rule.

Connecticut's Used Automobile Warranty law is found in Chapter 743f of the Connecticut statutes. Further, the Connecticut DMV has a web page titled Used Car Warranty that links to Chapter 743f and a "Dealers and Repairers Complaint Form."

Further reading:



Insurance Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=286

AC37828 - Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Hirsch ("The substitute plaintiff, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered, in part, in favor of the defendant, Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in: (1) its calculation of damages; (2) declining to award attorney’s fees; and (3) calculating prejudgment interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3a from the return date on the summons. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=285

AC38258 - Emerick v. Emerick ("In this marital dissolution action, the self-represented defendant, Roger Emerick, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Ficeto, J., claiming that the court (1) demonstrated bias against him on the basis of his gender and status as a self-represented party; (2) abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiff, Denise Emerick, $100,000 in lump sum alimony and in distributing the marital property; (3) improperly denied his request for an order regarding the plaintiff’s grandchildren; (4) improperly denied his request for a jury trial; and (5) improperly denied his motions for reargument and for a mistrial. We find none of these claims persuasive and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=282

AC37833 - Ventura v. East Haven (Negligence; "The defendant, the town of East Haven, appeals from the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Thomas Ventura, after the jury returned a verdict awarding him damages for personal injuries he sustained when he was struck by a motor vehicle driven by a private individual, Vladimir Trnka. The jury concluded that the defendant was not immune from liability because, earlier in the evening on the day of the accident, East Haven police officer Jeffrey Strand, after investigating an unrelated domestic violence incident involving Trnka, had a clear ministerial duty to tow Trnka's vehicle on the basis of the vehicle's invalid registration and improper plates. The court denied the defendant's motions to direct or to set aside the verdict.

"On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred when it failed to (1) direct a verdict for the defendant on the basis of governmental immunity; (2) direct or set aside the verdict on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence that Strand's alleged negligence actually or proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries; and (3) set aside the jury's verdict because the court admitted irrelevant and prejudicial testimony regarding Trnka's possible intoxication and agitation, and permitted the plaintiff's expert to testify about East Haven police procedures despite his having no special knowledge about them. We agree with the defendant's first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=284

SC19512 - Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; CGA sec. 51-296 (a); "The sole issue in this appeal is whether Connecticut law permits a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus (third habeas) to vindicate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during what is commonly known as a ‘habeas on a habeas,’ namely, a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus (second habeas) challenging the performance of counsel in litigating an initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus (first habeas), which had claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at the petitioner’s underlying criminal trial or on direct appeal... we conclude that our common law authorizes a third habeas petition as a proper vehicle to vindicate that right. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the counts of the third habeas petition that claimed ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel.")

AC38453 - White v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; kidnapping in second degree with firearm; burglary in second degree with firearm; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the habeas court improperly granted the petition after concluding that the jury in the petitioner’s underlying criminal case should have been instructed on the intent and conduct necessary to find the petitioner guilty of kidnapping in accordance with State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 550, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly granted the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment.”)


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=283

AC38080 - Geiger v. Carey (Trespass; injunction; quiet title; "The plaintiffs . . . brought this action against the defendant . . . their next door neighbor, seeking money damages, punitive damages, and an order requiring the defendant to remove a fence. The complaint sounded in three counts:(1) trespass; (2) violation of Connecticut's tree cutting statute, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-560; and (3) malicious erection of a structure, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570. The defendant brought a counterclaim against the plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, and an order of quiet title to the land under the fence and airspace above the fence. The counterclaim sounded in seven counts:(1) private nuisance; (2 through 4) trespass; (5) quiet title; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress. . .

We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.See Geiger v. Carey, __ Conn. App. __, __ A.3d __ (2015) (appendix). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment is affirmed.")


Supreme Court Cases - January 2017

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=281

The Connecticut Supreme Court has posted information about the fifth term of the 2016-17 court year, including a listing of cases (with links to their summaries) being heard in January. From the release:

The Connecticut Supreme Court will start the fifth term of the 2016-17 court year on Tuesday, Jan. 17. The fifth term will end on Thursday, Jan. 26. Cases argued this term will occur at the Supreme Court courtroom, 231 Capitol Ave., Hartford.

  • Posted in:
  • FYI

Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=280

AC37958 - Martinez v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (Unemployment compensation benefits; "The defendant Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal by the plaintiff, Orlando Martinez, and reversing the decision of the Employment Security Board of Review (board) denying benefits to the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) disregarded the factual findings of the board although no motion to correct was filed as required by Practice Book § 22-4, and (2) determined that the board abused its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff engaged in wilful misconduct. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=277

AC38036 - Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C. v. Rendahl (Tortious interference with business relationships; "The plaintiffs, Law Offices of Frank N. Peluso, P.C., and Frank Peluso, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint against the defendant, Joy M. Rendahl, on the basis of absolute litigation immunity. We agree with the defendant that the plaintiffs' brief on appeal is inscrutable. Nonetheless, even if we were to read the plaintiffs' primary claim broadly, in the manner advanced at oral argument, i.e., as claiming that the defendant does not have absolute immunity or, alternatively, that we should abrogate any legal precedent affording the defendant absolute immunity, we conclude that the claim fails on the merits.")

AC38221 - Oliphant v. Heath (Negligence; "The plaintiff, Vorcelia Oliphant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion to open a judgment of nonsuit and denying her motion to reargue or reconsider the court's denial of her motion to open. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in denying her motions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=279

AC37929 - Pedrini v. Kiltonic ("In this landlord-tenant case, the plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court returning to her $1094.81, a portion of her security deposit plus interest. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to award her double the amount of her security deposit pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 47a-21 (d) (2); (2) failing to find that the actions of the defendant . . . constituted a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and, therefore, failing to assess punitive damages and to award the plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to § 42-110g (a) and (d); and (3) finding that the plaintiff was entitled to only a portion of her security deposit plus interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. . .

The plaintiff's argument that the defendant was not entitled to deduct $527.55 from the security deposit rests on the assumption that the court allowed the deduction as a setoff for any property damage. The plaintiff cites our Supreme Court's decision in Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 218 Conn. 474, 590 A.2d 431 (1991) for the proposition that '[a] landlord['s] claim for property damage, like back rent claims, usually arise[s] either as part of a suit for damages or as a setoff or counterclaim to a tenant's action for return of a security deposit.' The plaintiff's characterization of the court's award is mistaken. Under the lease, the plaintiff was obligated to pay the water and sewer bills, and to maintain the exterior of the property. The court heard evidence from the defendant that the plaintiff failed to comply with her obligations, and the court was entitled to credit such testimony. On the basis of the statute, the defendant was entitled to withhold damages suffered by the tenant's failure to comply with the lease agreement. The plaintiff's characterization of this amount as a setoff, counterclaim, or special damage is misplaced. The court correctly followed the dictates of § 47a-21 (d) (1) in deducting from the security deposit the damages suffered by the defendant as a result of the tenant's failure to comply with her obligations under the lease. Accordingly, the court's findings were not clearly erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=278

SC19554 - Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor (Taxation; appeal from assessment of real property taxes; "The statutory right to appeal from an assessment of real property by a municipal board of assessment appeals is conditioned on the property owner "mak[ing] application" to the Superior Court within two months of the date the board mails notice of its action. See General Statutes § 12-117a. The question presented by this case is whether, for purposes of this limitation period, such application is made upon the filing of the required appeal documents in the Superior Court, or rather, when those appeal documents have been served upon the taxing municipality. The plaintiff, Chestnut Point Realty, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's dismissal of its municipal tax appeal due to untimeliness. Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 158 Conn. App. 565, 575, 119 A.3d 1229 (2015). The plaintiff claims that, under the plain language of § 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the Superior Court, even though the appeal was not served on the defendant, the town of East Windsor (town), until a date beyond the expiration of the two month appeal period. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC19555 - Kettle Brook Realty, LLC v. East Windsor (Taxation; appeal from assessment of real property taxes; "This case raises the issue of whether a municipal tax appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a is commenced, for purposes of meeting the limitation period prescribed by that statute, by the filing of the tax appeal with the Superior Court or, rather, upon the service of the appeal on the municipal taxing authority. The plaintiff, Kettle Brook Realty, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's dismissal of its tax appeal due to untimeliness. Kettle Brook Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 158 Conn. App. 576, 579, 119 A.3d 1276 (2015). The plaintiff claims that, under the plain language of § 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the Superior Court, even though the appeal was not served on the defendant, the town of East Windsor (town), until a date beyond the expiration of the two month appeal period. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")




Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=273

SC19183 - State v. Lester (Sexual assault first degree; sexual assault fourth degree; risk of injury to child; persistent serious sexual offender; "In this case, we are asked to decide whether the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim’s prior sexual assault allegation and the subsequent investigation when it was offered by the defendant, Edward Lester, to show the victim’s lack of credibility and an alternative source of the victim’s advanced sexual knowledge. The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), three counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (a), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2), based on allegations that on multiple occasions he sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s daughter, who was eight years old at the time of the alleged conduct. During the course of the trial, the trial court granted the state’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct, including a prior allegation of sexual abuse made by the victim, when she was five years old, against her father’s then wife. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts and the trial court thereafter rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict. See footnote 3 of this opinion. The defendant appeals to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the prior allegation and subsequent investigation. We dismiss the defendant’s appeal as moot because the defendant has not challenged all of the trial court’s bases for its evidentiary ruling.")

AC38567 - State v. Mark (Tampering with evidence; motion for judgment of acquittal; sufficiency of evidence; "The state appeals from the judgment of the trial court setting aside the jury's verdict finding the defendant, Michael Mark, guilty of one count of tampering with evidence in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2010) § 53a-155 (a). The state claims that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty. We agree with the state and reverse the judgment of the trial court. ")

AC38566 - State v. Mark (Murder; felony murder; robbery in first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery in degree; double jeopardy; third party culpability; "The defendant, Michael Mark, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count each of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1), robbery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-134 (a) (3), and conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-134. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by excluding evidence that supported his third party culpability defense, and (2) violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the constitution of Connecticut. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36541, AC36543 - State v. Brito (Possession of narcotics with intent to sell; possession of hallucinogenic substance; motion to suppress; "In this consolidated appeal, the defendant, Edwin Brito, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional pleas of nolo contendere made pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a. In one case, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a hallucinogenic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (b) and, in the other case, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). The defendant entered the pleas after the court denied his two motions to suppress certain evidence that the police discovered following two warrantless searches. These searches were incident to two unrelated traffic stops involving the defendant. As he did before the trial court, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of these searches. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC37394 - State v. Mitchell (Sale of narcotic substance; sale of narcotic substance within 1500 feet of public school; "The defendant, Yuwell Mitchell, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, on the charges of sale of a narcotic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b) and sale of a narcotic substance within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court's jury instruction to continue deliberations after the jury reported that it was unable to reach a verdict violated his right to a fair trial by coercing the jurors to reach a unanimous verdict without providing a cautionary reminder of their duties as individual jurors not to agree to a verdict unless they personally agree to it under the court's instructions as applied to the evidence before them. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2