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.
SC20806 - State v. Hamilton (Murder; carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; “For the reasons that follow, we agree with the defendant
that Carr’s two prior interviews with the police were improperly admitted as
prior inconsistent statements under Whelan because the state failed to demonstrate
that Carr’s prior interviews were in fact inconsistent with his trial
testimony. Because we conclude that the error was not harmless, we reverse the
judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial. As to the
defendant’s second claim, although we disagree with him that adopted statements
are inadmissible as prior inconsistent statements under Whelan, we nevertheless
conclude that the trial court improperly delegated to the jury the
responsibility of determining which of Cobia’s statements were adopted by Carr
as his own and, therefore, were admissible hearsay under Whelan. Lastly, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
video and photographs from the defendant’s social media accounts.”)
Monday, June 30
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
Tuesday, July 1
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Danbury Law Library opens at 12:45 p.m.
Wednesday, July 2
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Waterbury Law Library is closed.
Thursday, July 3
- Waterbury Law Library closes at 4:30 p.m.
- New Britain Law Library closes at 2:30 p.m.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Friday, July 4
- All Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.
AC47400 - State v. Rivas (Conditional plea of nolo contendere; operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; “On appeal, he claims
that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the charge because
(1) the state’s delay in executing the warrant for his arrest (preaccusation
delay) violated his right to due process, and (2) the prosecution violated an
earlier plea agreement he had entered into with the state. We disagree and,
accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)
AC47461 -
Drummer v. State (“In this action for a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief, the plaintiff, Gloria Drummer, appeals from the judgment of
the trial court denying her motion for summary judgment and granting the motion
for summary judgment filed by the defendants, the state of Connecticut, the
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Connecticut Valley Hospital,
Whiting Forensic Hospital, Greater Bridgeport Community Mental Health Center,
Connecticut Mental Health Center, and Capital Region Mental Health Center. On
appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) rendered summary
judgment in favor of the defendants and (2) denied her motion for class
certification. We do not reach the merits of these claims because, for reasons
that follow, we conclude that the plaintiff lacked the requisite standing to
assert her claims before the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment
of the trial court only as to the form of the judgment and remand the case with
direction to dismiss the action.”)
AC47195 - Narcisse v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction
Services (“In the operative habeas petition, he alleged that his plea
of not guilty with the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, made
pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13 (a), was not made knowingly and
voluntarily because he was not canvassed pursuant to Duperry v. Solnit,
261 Conn. 309, 329, 803 A.2d 287 (2002), and that his criminal trial counsel,
Attorney Kim W. Mendola (trial counsel), had provided ineffective assistance.
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined
that (1) the underlying criminal proceeding was contested and adversarial in
nature and, thus, that the petitioner was not required to be canvassed pursuant
to Duperry, and (2) his trial counsel did not render deficient performance by
failing to advise the petitioner regarding the canvass requirements of Duperry.
We disagree with both claims and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC46937 - Abdus-Sabur v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court
incorrectly determined that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel had
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena and present the
testimony of the petitioner’s brother. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in
part the judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC47213 - Birch Groves Assn., Inc. v. Jordon ("The defendant, Kathleen Casey Jordon, also known as Kathleen C. Jordan, appeals from the judgments of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Birch Groves Association, Inc. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by not vacating her default for failure to plead, and (2) erred in rendering judgments on the basis of the plaintiff’s affidavit of debt when the debt was disputed by the defendant. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for the purpose of setting new sale dates.")
SC20794 - State v. Haynes (“On appeal, the defendant makes three claims. First, the
defendant asks us to overrule State v.Reid, 193 Conn. 646, 654–55 and
n.11, 480 A.2d 463 (1984), which held that the Connecticut constitution permits
the state to impeach a criminal defendant with a voluntary statement obtained
in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.
Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Second, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in
admitting photographs taken of him during an interview that violated his right
to counsel under Miranda. Third, the defendant claims that he was
deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor presented testimony from a witness
who had been disclosed only three days prior to the start of evidence. We
disagree with each of the defendant’s claims and affirm the judgment of
conviction.”)
AC48194 - In re Tianna M.-M. ("The respondent father, Toraine M.,
appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered
in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children
and Families, terminating his parental rights with
respect to his minor child, Tianna M.-M. (Tianna). On
appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly
concluded that the Department of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify
him with Tianna. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.")
SC20852 - State v. Ramsey (Murder; “At trial, the defendant admitted that he had
stabbed the victim during a fight inside the victim’s apartment but claimed
that he had acted in self-defense. The jury rejected his justification defense,
finding him guilty of murder. In this direct appeal pursuant to General
Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant claims that the evidence presented at
trial was insufficient to disprove his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable
doubt. We affirm the judgment of conviction.”)
AC48224 - In re N. A. ("The respondent mother, L. A., appeals
from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor
of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and
Families, terminating her parental rights with respect
to her minor child, N. A., on the ground that the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal
rehabilitation, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112
(j) (3) (B) (i). On appeal, the respondent claims that the
court improperly determined that (1) the Department
of Children and Families (department) made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child, (2) she failed to
rehabilitate sufficiently, and (3) termination of her
parental rights was in the child’s best interest. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 52, for June 24, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 352: Connecticut Reports (Pages 183 - 210)
- Volume 352: Orders (Pages 907 - 909)
- Volume 352: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 233: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 297 - 352)
- Volume 233: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 903)
- Volume 233: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Connecticut Practice Book Amendments
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies
Friday, June 20
- New Britain Law Library closes at 12:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
- Danbury Law Library is closed.
- Bridgeport Law Library is closed.
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Monday, June 23
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Danbury Law Library is open 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 24
- New London Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
Wednesday, June 25
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
Thursday, June 26
- Putnam Law Library is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library is closed.
Friday, June 27
- New London Law Library is closed.
- Putnam Law Library is closed.
- Danbury Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
- Torrington Law Library closes at 3:30 p.m.
AC47623 - Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Virgulak ("In this action to foreclose on a judgment lien, the defendant, Theresa Virgulak, appeals from the decision of the trial court granting the motion filed by the plaintiff, Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., also known as M&T Bank, to dismiss her special defenses and counterclaim and from the subsequent judgment of foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss her (1) three special defenses and (2) three count counterclaim sounding in vexatious litigation. We disagree with the defendant's first claim but agree with her second claim. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the court.")
SC20881 - State v. Hinton (Felony murder; attempt to commit robbery in the first
degree; criminal possession of a pistol; carrying a pistol without a permit; “The
defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of
felony murder because there was no evidence that the shooter, Mark Christian,
was the defendant’s accessory to the predicate crime of attempted robbery, (2)
the trial court’s felony murder instruction incorrectly failed to inform the
jury that the state had the burden to establish that Christian was the
defendant’s accessory to the predicate crime of attempted robbery, (3) the
court violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation by improperly
admitting into evidence Omar Rivera’s video-recorded interviews with the police
because Rivera’s inability to recall the shooting during his testimony at trial
rendered him functionally unavailable for cross-examination, and (4) Rivera’s
video-recorded interviews were insufficient in the absence of additional
corroborative evidence to establish his specific intent to commit attempted
robbery. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)
AC46846 - State v. Dunbar (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1)
violated his right to due process under the federal constitution by failing to engage
in a due process balancing analysis under State v. Shakir, 130 Conn.
App. 458, 467, 22 A.3d 1285, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 931, 28 A.3d 345 (2011),
before admitting certain hearsay evidence and (2) abused its discretion in
revoking his probation. We disagree and affirm the judgments.”)
AC47619 - Emrich v. Emrich (Alimony; “The plaintiff claims that the court abused its
discretion in issuing that alimony order on the grounds that it (1) failed to
properly consider all of the criteria set forth in General Statutes § 46b-82;
(2) did not ‘scrutinize the parties’ financial affidavits equally’; (3) failed
to consider the defendant’s own hand at the depletion of his property
settlement; and (4) erroneously characterized her request for further alimony
as a request for funds to expend on her children versus funds for ‘her benefit’
to fulfill ‘her need to see her children and grandchildren.’ (Emphasis
omitted.) The plaintiff also claims that the court abused its discretion by
declining to award additional court costs to her ‘as a self-represented party
when she had only $8865.29 left in her bank account.’ We affirm the judgment of
the trial court.”)
The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has made available its Major Public Acts Report for the 2025 Legislative Session:
"These summaries, composed by the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) with the assistance of the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), briefly describe the most significant, far-reaching, and publicly debated acts adopted by the General Assembly in its 2025 regular session. Acts that have been assigned a public act (PA), special act (SA), or resolution act (RA) number are identified by that number; otherwise, we refer to the bill or resolution number. Not all provisions of the acts are included. More detailed summaries can be found at https://cga.ct.gov/olr/. Summaries of the major acts and all other public acts will be provided in our 2025 Public Act Summary Book, which will be available later this year."
The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXVI, No. 51, for June 17, 2025 is now available.
- Table of Contents
- Volume 352: Connecticut Reports (Pages 161 - 183)
- Volume 352: Orders (Pages 904 - 907)
- Volume 352: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
- Volume 233: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 234 - 296)
- Volume 233: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 901 - 901)
- Volume 233: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
- Miscellaneous Notices
- Notices of Connecticut State Agencies