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.


Criminal Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3066

SC19588 - State v. Parnoff ("The defendant, Laurence V. Parnoff, uttered threatening words to two water company employees who had entered his property pursuant to an easement to service a fire hydrant—telling them, essentially, that if they did not leave his property, he would retrieve a gun and shoot them. As a result of his statement, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182 (a) (1), which criminalizes intentionally or recklessly causing inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by way of 'violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior . . . .' The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction, arguing that, under principles stemming from the first amendment to the United States constitution, there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict as to the disorderly conduct charge. State v. Parnoff, 160 Conn. App. 270, 274, 125 A.3d 573 (2015). Because the behavior giving rise to his conviction was pure speech and not physical violence, the first amendment forbids the imposition of criminal sanctions unless that speech amounts to so-called 'fighting words'—words that would cause a reasonable addressee to respond with imminent violence under the circumstances. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baccala, 326 Conn. 232, 234–35, 251, 163 A.3d 1, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 510, 199 L. Ed. 2d 408 (2017); see also U.S. Const., amend. I. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment after concluding that the defendant's statement was not fighting words because, although inappropriate, the defendant's words were not likely to provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the water company employees. State v. Parnoff, supra, 281. We agree with the Appellate Court and affirm its judgment.")

AC40283 - State v. Baldwin ("The defendant, Lee Baldwin, appeals challenging the denial of his motion to modify the terms and conditions of his probation filed pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-30 (c). Specifically, he claims that (1) the court's denial violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a future proceeding and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to modify and not allowing the defendant to delay his sex offender treatment until his pending habeas action had concluded. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39126 - State v. Gerald A. ("The defendant, Gerald A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of one count of sexual assault in the first degree; (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his prior misconduct; (3) the trial court improperly granted the state's motion for joinder of two separate cases against him; and (4) the trial court improperly denied his motion to make an opening statement to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40453 - State v. Morris ("The plaintiff in error, Dad's Bail Bonds, LLC, brings this writ of error challenging the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for release from surety obligations arising out of a $45,000 bond it had posted on behalf of the defendant in the underlying criminal case, Stanley Morris. After Morris failed to appear in court as required, the court ordered the bond forfeited. The plaintiff in error claims that the trial court violated its right to due process in numerous ways during the adjudication of its motion for release and that, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-65c, it was entitled to release from its surety obligation.")


Workers' Compensation Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3064

SC20005 - Williams v. New Haven ("In the present case, we are asked to determine whether our holding in Genovese, in which the plaintiff brought an action in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-290a, applies equally when a plaintiff has opted to bring his claim pursuant to § 31-290a before the Workers’ Compensation Commission (commission). Specifically, we must determine whether the Compensation Review Board (review board) correctly determined that § 31-51bb permitted the plaintiff, Simon Williams, to file a claim with the commission alleging that the named defendant, the city of New Haven,1 had violated § 31-290a by wrongfully terminating his employment in retaliation for bringing a workers’ compensation claim, despite the fact that a related issue previously had been decided by the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration (state board) in an arbitration proceeding brought pursuant to the plaintiff’s collective bargaining agreement. We conclude that the review board correctly determined that, under § 31-51bb, the plaintiff’s claim brought before the commission pursuant to § 31-290a was not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Accordingly, we affirm the review board’s decision.")

AC39673 - Mikucka v. St. Lucian's Residence, Inc. (“The plaintiff claims that (1) the commissioner, by not allowing her to present evidence to prove that she did not have a work capacity, violated her right to due process, and (2) the commissioner erred in determining that she was not totally disabled. We affirm the decision of the board and dismiss the appeal as to the second claim.”)


Foreclosure Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3065

AC39955 - HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hallums ("The defendant, Mark A. Hallums, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc.On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly:(1) rendered a judgment when the plaintiff lacked standing in the case; (2) rendered a judgment in the absence of jurisdiction because there was no state law right to pursue a foreclosure action in light of the defendant's discharge of the debt in bankruptcy; and (3) refused to apply the best evidence rule and the clean hands doctrine.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39880 - Jenzack Partners, LLC v. Stoneridge Associates, LLC ("The defendant Jennifer Tine appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Jenzack Partners, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) held that Sovereign Bank had assigned the defendant's guarantee to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had standing to foreclose on the mortgage; (2) determined that the plaintiff had established the amount of debt due on the subject note; and (3) granted attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant's second claim and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to Jennifer Tine.")


Familiy Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3067

AC39544 - Magsig v. Magsig ("The plaintiff, Kim Magsig, appeals from the denial of her postdissolution motion for contempt. On appeal, she claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant, Michael Magsig, had not violated an indemnification obligation contained in the parties’ separation agreement. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3063

SC19777 - State v. Castillo (Attempt to commit robbery first degree; attempt to commit robbery second degree; motion to suppress; certification from Appellate Court; "In this certified appeal, the defendant, William Castillo, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-134 (a) (3), and attempt to commit robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-135 (a) (1) (A). The defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly (1) concluded that, during his in-home interrogation by the police, he was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and (2) declined to exercise its supervisory authority "to adopt a new rule governing the admissibility of statements obtained during the interrogation of juveniles." State v. Castillo, 165 Conn. App. 703, 729, 140 A.3d 301 (2016). Because we conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the defendant was not in custody, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. Interpreting the third certified question as a request by the defendant to exercise our supervisory authority to adopt his requested rule, we decline to do so.")


New Amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3062

The Judicial Branch has posted new Amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective September 1, 2018.

The amendments include a new rule in Chapter 72 - Writs of Error. From the official commentary for sec. 72-3A. Stays. :

This new rule makes it clear that only the order or proceeding being challenged, and not the entire underlying action, is stayed upon the timely and proper filing of a writ of error. It also sets forth the procedures for terminating or imposing a stay.


Connecticut Law Journal - June 26, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3061

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 52, for June 26, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 329: Connecticut Reports (Pages 293 - 310)
  • Volume 329: Orders (Pages 908 - 910)
  • Volume 329: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 182: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 811 - 865)
  • Volume 182: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Volume 183: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 1 - 82)
  • Volume 183: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


New Laws Effective July 1, 2018

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3060

The Connecticut General Assembly has posted a list of new legislation that is effective on July 1, 2018. Each entry includes links to the full text of the public act, the plain English summary from the Office of Legislative Research, and the bill status page.

In addition, you can view current legislation effective from passage. The Connecticut General Assembly also provides an archiveof legislation by effective date going back to October 2007.


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3058

AC40704 - Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Fraboni ("This appeal comes to us on a reservation of a legal issue pursuant to General Statutes § 52-235 and Practice Book § 73-1. The stipulation of the parties presents two questions for the advice of this court: (1) '[Except where otherwise provided by statute or other law,] [d]oes the filing of an appeal "after the time to file an appeal has expired" . . . automatically stay the trial court proceedings in a noncriminal case pursuant to Practice Book § 61-11 until the final determination of the cause?' and (2) 'If the answer to the first question is not categorically no, then did the filing of [the] defendant’s appeal in this instance "after the time to file an appeal [had] expired" result in an automatic stay of execution [pursuant to Practice Book § 61-11] which tolled the running of his law day.' We answer both questions in the negative.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3056

AC40078 - Emeritus Senior Living v. Lepore ("The plaintiff, Emeritus Senior Living a/k/a Brookdale Woodbridge, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Denise Lepore, in this action filed by the plaintiff to collect the unpaid balance due for assisted living services it had provided to the defendant’s now deceased mother, Louise Rolla. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by finding that the residency agreement, to the extent it holds the defendant personally liable, as Rolla’s representative, for unpaid amounts owed by Rolla to the plaintiff, is void and unenforceable because it is (1) unconscionable and (2) against public policy. We agree and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3054

AC40419 - Gianetti v. Dunsby (Tax relief; administrative appeal; subject matter jurisdiction; "The self-represented plaintiff, Charles D. Gianetti, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court rendered in favor of the defendants, Adam Dunsby, Robert Lesser, and Scott Centrella, in this action concerning the plaintiff's eligibility for tax relief under a municipal ordinance. On appeal, the plaintiff raises a bevy of challenges to the factual findings and evidentiary determinations of the court. In response, the defendants contend, inter alia, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the present action. We agree with the defendants and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case with direction to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3053

AC39825 - State v. Hudson (Criminal possession of firearm; altering firearm identification mark; "The defendant, Robert Lee Hudson III, appeals following the judgment of conviction, challenging only the sentence imposed on him by the trial court following his plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine to criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-217 and altering the identification mark of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 29-36. The defendant's plea was entered subject to a Garvin agreement. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court violated the defendant's right to due process when it found that he had violated the Garvin agreement without first conducting a hearing in accordance with State v. Stevens, 278 Conn. 1, 11–13, 895 A.2d 771 (2006), to determine whether probable cause existed to support the defendant's subsequent arrest, which was the basis of the violation. We conclude that the defendant's right to due process was not infringed and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC39358 - State v. Fletcher (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Darryl Fletcher, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32 and sentencing him to a term of incarceration of eighteen months. The defendant claims that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the court improperly relied on a fact that was not part of the record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38776 - State v. Morice W. (Risk of injury to child; assault in third degree; "The defendant, Morice W., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered against him after a jury trial, on charges of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1) and assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that he was deprived of a fair trial on those charges due to improper remarks by the prosecutor in her rebuttal closing argument. Although we agree that one of the prosecutor's challenged remarks was improper, we do not conclude that that remark deprived the defendant of a fair trial. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39744 - State v. Smith (Criminal possession of firearm; possession of weapon in motor vehicle; carrying pistol or revolver without permit; "The defendant, Jacqui Smith, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to a jury, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1), possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 29-38 (a), and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found him guilty of the three crimes. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39685 - State v. Dubuisson (Strangulation in second degree; "The defendant, Walker Wilner Dubuisson, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court, following a jury trial, on the charge of strangulation in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-64bb. The defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain out-of-court statements by the victim under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3055

AC39924 - Federal National Mortgage Assn. v. Farina ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Federal National Mortgage Association, appeals from the judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant Richard Farina. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it lacked standing to bring the present action. The plaintiff contends that, pursuant to a judgment of strict foreclosure, title to the subject property vested absolutely in the plaintiff on April 25, 2016, and, therefore, as the owner of the property, it had standing to prosecute the summary process action. The defendant, by contrast, claims that title never passed to the plaintiff in the foreclosure action because an appellate stay was in effect that prevented the law days from passing and, thus, the defendant is still the title holder of the property. We agree with the plaintiff and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40196 - Kargul v. Smith (" The self-represented defendants, Mika-Ela Smith and Mark DeGale, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Aloysius Kargul and Barbara Greczkowski. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this summary process action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

. . . [W]e conclude that when the plaintiffs withdrew the first action against the defendants prior to the commencement of a hearing on its merits, the continuation of the agreement between the parties was restored. Housing Authority v. Hird, supra, 13 Conn. App. 157. The trial court, therefore, did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' subsequent summary process action.

The judgment is affirmed.")


Standards of Practice for Conservators

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3052

This notice has been posted to the Connecticut Probate Courts website: In accordance with General Statutes section 45a-77(h), the Probate Court Administrator has adopted standards of practice to provide guidance to Probate Court-appointed conservators. The Probate Court Administrator developed the standards with assistance from the Probate Assembly and professionals in the field of elder justice and conservatorships.

The standards can be viewed by clicking on the link below:


Connecticut Law Journal - June 19, 2018

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3051

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 51, for June 19, 2018 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 181 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 539 - 540
  • Volume 328 Conn. Replacement Pages 930 - 930
  • Volume 329: Connecticut Reports (Pages 272 - 293)
  • Volume 329: Orders (Pages 903 - 907)
  • Volume 329: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 182: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 656 - 811)
  • Volume 182: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
  • Volume 182: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Election Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3050

SC20088 - Arciniega v. Feliciano (Writ of mandamus; counterclaim; whether party lacked standing to advance counterclaim; statutory aggrievement, discussed; "The question presented to us in this election case, brought under General Statutes § 9-329a, concerns the validity of petitions submitted to qualify a slate of candidates to run for election to the Democratic Town Committee for the sixth district of the city of Hartford. Specifically, it concerns whether election officials are required to reject such petitions if the circulator of the petitions knows or should know that the petitions contain an incorrect address for one of the candidates listed, irrespective of whether the candidate would be qualified to run for the position listed on the petitions under the correct address. We conclude that the threshold and, ultimately, dispositive issue is whether the acceptance of such a petition constitutes a "ruling of an election official," which is an essential predicate to a party's standing to proceed under § 9-329a. We conclude that it does not. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of this claim.")


Medical Malpractice Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3045

AC39559 - Peters v. United Community & Family Services, Inc. (Medical malpractice; motion to dismiss; personal jurisdiction; sufficiency of opinion letter authored by similar health care provider; "With the intent to deter the filing of frivolous medical malpractice actions, our legislature in 1986 adopted General Statutes § 52-190a, which makes malpractice actions subject to dismissal unless the plaintiff obtains and attaches to the complaint an opinion letter written and signed by a similar health care provider indicating that there appears to be evidence of medical negligence. The meaning and application of this requirement itself has spawned extensive litigation since its enactment. This appeal is the latest iteration of this judicial journey.

The plaintiff, Steven V. Peters, Jr., commenced the underlying action for monetary damages arising out of the alleged negligent performance of maxillofacial surgery. He appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, pursuant to § 52-190a (c), count three of his action directed against the defendant, Edward Reynolds, Jr., DDS, because the opinion letter that the plaintiff attached to the complaint failed to provide that its author is board certified by the appropriate American board in the same specialty as the defendant. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly relied on this court's decision in Gonzales v. Langdon, 161 Conn. App. 497, 128 A.3d 562 (2015), as the basis for its decision to reject the affidavit that he attached to his response to the motion to dismiss, in which he sought to clarify the credentials of the opinion letter's author. We conclude that, because the plaintiff's attempt to cure the defect in the opinion letter came after the relevant statute of limitations had run, the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of an inadequate opinion letter. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3044

SC19778 - State v. Tierinni (Sexual assault second degree; risk of injury to child; "We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following questions: (1) "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant waived his right to be present at critical stages of the criminal proceedings during arguments on evidentiary objections?" And (2) "If the answer to the first question is `no,' did the trial court's approach to handling evidentiary objections constitute structural error as a violation of the defendant's right to be present during critical stages of the criminal proceedings?" State v. Tierinni, 323 Conn. 904, 150 A.3d 681 (2016).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties before this court, we have determined that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. We conclude that the Appellate Court's decision fully addresses the first certified question, as reformulated in this opinion—namely, its conclusion that the defendant had waived any claim regarding his presence at the sidebar conferences by agreeing to the trial court's procedure for handling arguments on evidentiary objections. It would, therefore, serve no purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained in the Appellate Court's decision. Because we answer the first certified question in the affirmative, we do not reach the second question.")

AC39105 - State v. White (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "This case turns on the issue of the appropriate role of assigned counsel in the context of a motion to correct an illegal sentence following State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614, 922 A.2d 1065 (2007). The defendant, Antuan White, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) declining to appoint counsel to represent him on the merits; (2) denying his motion on the merits; and (3) deciding the merits of the motion to correct, despite having previously considered the merits of the issues during the hearing regarding the appointment of counsel. We disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC39169 - State v. Wynne (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; "The defendant, Paul Wynne, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of the state's expert on drug recognition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39474 - State v. Papineau (Assault in first degree; conspiracy to commit assault in first degree; "The defendant, Michael J. Papineau, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree with a dangerous instrument in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a-48. The defendant claims (1) that the trial court erroneously precluded his half brother from testifying about a phone conversation that transpired between the defendant and the defendant's former wife; (2) that the court erroneously precluded him from presenting testimony from the defendant's mother that, prior to the events at issue, he planned to travel to Massachusetts; (3) the court erroneously admitted a printout of text messages that the state failed to authenticate; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


1 2 3