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.
Recent Opinions

Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4061

SC20206 - State v. Ruiz-Pacheco (Assault; double jeopardy; "The defendant, Joesenier Ruiz-Pacheco, was convicted of, inter alia, two counts of assault in the first degree as a principal in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and two counts of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 (a) and 53a-59 (a) (1) on the basis of a joint physical assault involving two perpetrators, the defendant and his brother, and two victims, Kenneth Tucker and Luis Rodriguez. On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of conviction because he committed only one assault per victim (for a total of two assaults), and, therefore, his conviction of four assaults violates his right to be free from double jeopardy under the United States constitution. We agree with the defendant's claim as to Tucker, but we disagree with the defendant's claim as to Rodriguez and, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - July 7, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4059

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 1, for July 7, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 62 - 137)
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 923 - 924)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 643 - 853)
  • Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Contract Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4058

SC20329 - E. I. du Ponte de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (Breach of Contract; Whether, under New York law, the plaintiff was required to comply strictly with contractual notice provisions in order to exercise its right to indemnification under the contract. "The principal issue in this appeal is whether New York law requires a party to strictly comply with a notice provision in a commercial contract in order to recover for the other party's breach of the contract. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), had not strictly complied with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly required strict compliance with the APA's notice provisions because New York law distinguishes between public contracts and private commercial contracts, and does not require strict compliance in commercial contracts when the contracting party receives actual notice and suffers no prejudice from the deviation. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4053

AC41809 - Maselli v. Regional School District No.10 (Summary judgment; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligence; recklessness; "The plaintiff, Theresa Maselli, as next friend of her minor daughter, Angelina Maselli, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Regional School District Number 10, which serves the towns of Burlington and Harwinton; its superintendent, Alan Beitman; the principal of Har-Bur Middle School (middle school), Kenneth Smith; and Robert Samudosky, a physical education teacher at the middle school and the coach of the girls soccer team. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because (1) a jury reasonably could have concluded that Samudosky intended to batter Angelina when he kicked a ball during soccer practice that struck her, (2) a jury reasonably could have concluded that Samudosky is liable for battery for acting wantonly or recklessly when he kicked the ball, (3) the court improperly concluded that the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) because the defendants had a duty to act and Angelina was an identifiable person to which the imminent harm exception to governmental immunity applied, and (4) the court improperly applied the governmental immunity analysis by considering whether Angelina was a member of an identifiable class of potential victims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41834 - Mccullough v. Rocky Hill (Abuse of process; intentional infliction of emotional distress; trespass; trespass to chattels; fraudulent misrepresentation; invasion of privacy; summary judgment; governmental immunity; "The self-represented plaintiff, Stephen C. McCullough, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the town of Rocky Hill, on all twelve counts of his operative complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff raises several claims that do not merit substantive discussion. The plaintiff further claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on (1) the intentional tort claims pleaded in his operative complaint and (2) his abuse of process claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41654 - Rozbicki v. Sconyers (Vexatious litigation; "The plaintiff, Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Frederick J. Laser (Laser), Laser Building Company, J. Michael Sconyers, and Ackerly Brown, LLP, on his one count complaint sounding in vexatious litigation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that (1) the defendants had probable cause to assert special defenses and to file a counterclaim in a prior action commenced by the plaintiff against Laser and Laser Building Company (Laser defendants), and (2) the Laser defendants relied in good faith on the advice of J. Michael Sconyers and Ackerly Brown, LLP (Sconyers defendants), their counsel in the prior action, in asserting the special defenses and filing the counterclaim. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41759 - Gerrish v. Hammick (Defamation; tortious interference; "This is a tort action brought by the plaintiff, Michael Gerrish, against the defendant Matthew Willauer seeking to recover damages for injuries that he claims to have sustained as a result of an allegedly defamatory statement made by the defendant to the plaintiff's former employer, Quinnipiac University (Quinnipiac). The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, which initially had denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, improperly granted (1) the defendant's motion to reargue and (2) upon reconsideration, the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the defamation and tortious interference counts of his complaint. We disagree with both claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4057

AC39631 - Petrucelli v. Meriden (Appeal of violation of city ordinance; whether trial court should have dismissed petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; "The petitioner, Arthur Petrucelli, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the respondent, the city of Meriden (city), following a de novo hearing held on his petition to reopen a decision issued by a city hearing officer upholding the issuance of a written notice to the petitioner for violation of the city's ordinance concerning abandoned, inoperable, or unregistered motor vehicles. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) erroneously concluded that his due process rights had not been violated, (2) improperly denied his posthearing motion to reopen the evidence or, in the alternative, to take judicial notice, and (3) committed several evidentiary errors during the de novo hearing. We do not reach the merits of the petitioner's claims, however, because we conclude that the petitioner did not have a statutory right to appeal to the Superior Court from the hearing officer's decision and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the form of the trial court's judgment is improper, and we reverse the judgment and remand the case with direction to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")


Civil Procedure Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4055

AC41986 - Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (Sanctions; whether trial court's order of sanctions met requirements for evaluating whether court's order constituted abuse of discretion; "This appeal involves a challenge to sanctions imposed by the trial court to remedy extensive discovery abuses by the defendants that frustrated the plaintiff's attempt to collect on a significant monetary judgment. The defendants, Pursuit Opportunity Fund I, L.P. (POF), Pursuit Opportunity Fund I Master Ltd. (POF Master), Pursuit Capital Management Fund I, L.P. (PCM), Pursuit Capital Master (Cayman) Ltd. (PCM Master), Pursuit Investment Management, LLC (PIM), Northeast Capital Management, LLC (Northeast), Anthony Schepis, and Frank Canelas, Jr., appeal from the trial court's order of sanctions, in which the court awarded the plaintiff, Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P., attorney's fees and litigation costs for the defendants' discovery abuses. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court's order of sanctions constituted an abuse of discretion because the order failed to meet the three requirements that a trial court must deem satisfied before imposing sanctions and that this court must analyze to determine whether the trial court's order constituted an abuse of discretion. See Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 328 Conn. 60, 70–71, 176 A.3d 1167 (2018) (citing Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 17–18, 776 A.2d 1115 (2001)). We disagree with the defendants' claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4052

AC31302 - State v. Crafter (Assault in first degree; motion for judgment of acquittal; "The defendant, Laura C. Crafter, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree by means of a dangerous instrument in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court erred in denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to establish that she intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim, (2) the state failed to disprove the defendant's defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the court committed plain error by failing to instruct, sua sponte, the jury on defense of others within its self-defense instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41474 - State v. Morlo M. (Assault in first degree; risk of injury to child; unlawful restraint in first degree; "The defendant, Morlo M., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (3), five counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), and one count of unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4054

AC42306 - Winakor v. Savalle (Breach of contract; violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.); violation of Home Improvement Act (§ 20-418 et seq.); attorney's fees; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether services provided by a contractor as part of the construction of a new residence fell outside of the statutory purview of the Home Improvement Act (Improvement Act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq. The defendant, Vincent Savalle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Lee Winakor, in which the court concluded that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $100,173.32 for breach of contract, violation of the Improvement Act, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110b et seq. On appeal, the defendant claims, among other things, that the trial court improperly rendered judgment in favor the plaintiff on (1) the CUTPA count because it predicated CUTPA liability on the erroneous determination that the defendant had violated the Improvement Act, and (2) the breach of contract count because there was insufficient evidence to establish causation, which is necessary to prove damages. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff. We agree with the defendant on his claim regarding the improper imposition of CUTPA liability and the award of attorney's fees but disagree with him on his claim that the court improperly found for the plaintiff on the count alleging a breach of contract. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4056

AC42560 - Bank of New York Mellon v. Mangiafico (Foreclosure; whether foreclosure action was barred by limitation period set forth in statute (§ 42a-3-118); "The defendant Sebastian Mangiafico appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee (CWALT 2007-14T2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only because (1) the action is time barred by the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 42a-3-118, and (2) the court failed to consider the defendant's fifth special defense, namely, that the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - June 30, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4051

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 53, for June 30, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 922 - 923)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 392 - 643)
  • Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Habeas Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4049

SC20089 - Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction ("The dispositive question presented by this certified appeal is whether a criminal defendant's federal due process rights are violated when the state knowingly fails to correct the material, false testimony of a prosecution witness when defense counsel had actual or constructive notice that the testimony is false. We conclude that, under the circumstances of the present case, the fact that defense counsel was aware of the falsity of the testimony of two cooperating witnesses was not sufficient to protect the rights of the petitioner, Jamie Gomez, to due process of the law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying the petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4044

AC42131 - State Marshal Assn. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Johnson (Declaratory action; motion to dismiss; "The plaintiff, State Marshal Association of Connecticut, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its declaratory action against the defendants, Erin Johnson, the tax collector of the town of Canton (town), and Pullman & Comley, LLC (Pullman). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that it lacked standing to maintain the action and (2) denied the plaintiff's motion seeking reargument and reconsideration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4045

AC41350, AC41351 - Pack 2000, Inc. v. Cushman (Leases; options to purchase real property; specific performance; "In these consolidated appeals, the plaintiff, Pack 2000, Inc., appeals from the judgments of the trial court, which determined the amount due the defendant, Eugene C. Cushman, for two properties he had contracted to sell to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in concluding that (1) the purchase prices for the properties, located in Groton and New London, should be based on their current appraised values, rather than their appraised values in 2003, (2) the plaintiff was required to pay use and occupancy for its continued use of the Groton property retroactive to June 1, 2014, until the closing of the sale of the property to the plaintiff, and (3) the plaintiff was not entitled to credits toward the purchase price of each property for moneys paid as rent or use and occupancy after it exercised its options to purchase the properties. The defendant filed cross appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to use the current appraised value set by his appraiser as the purchase price for the Groton property. We agree with the plaintiff on all of its claims and disagree with the defendant as to his cross appeals. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the cases with direction to determine the purchase prices of the properties pursuant to the plaintiff’s exercise of its options to purchase the properties in 2003, that the court credit against those purchase prices any payments made by the plaintiff to the defendant for use of the properties after its exercise of its purchase options, and, to the extent that the payments to the defendant on each property, after the option became effective, exceeded the purchase price of that property, that the court order any overpayment be refunded to the plaintiff.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4047

AC42551 - Stubbs v. ICare Management, LLC (Employment discrimination; "The plaintiff, Tanya Stubbs, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, ICare Management, LLC (ICare), and Meriden Care Center, LLC (Meriden), on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants terminated her due to her disability, failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability, and retaliated against her for requesting a reasonable accommodation. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in determining that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether (1) the defendants' stated reason for their termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual and as to whether, at the time her employment was terminated, she was qualified, with or without a reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of her job, and (2) the defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation. Because there are genuine issues of material fact as to the plaintiff's claims of discrimination and failure to accommodate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to those claims. We affirm the trial court's judgment as to the plaintiff's claims of retaliation because she has failed to brief the claims and, therefore, has abandoned them.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4048

AC42748 - Sackman v. Quinlan (Conversion; unjust enrichment; tortious interference with contract; whether trial court abused its discretion when it granted motion for permission to file motion for summary judgment; "This appeal arises from a dispute between the self-represented plaintiffs, the biological children of William Sackman, Jr. (William), from his marriage to Elaine Sackman (Elaine), and the defendants, who are the children of William's second wife, Nancy L. Sackman (Nancy), and one of the children's spouse. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the defendants on a motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly (1) allowed the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment, (2) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42654 - Audibert v. Halle (Negligence; motion to set aside verdict and for new trial; "The plaintiff, Carole Audibert, brought this personal injury action against the defendant, Wesley Halle, for injuries she alleges she sustained as the result of an automobile accident on April 12, 2013, caused by the defendant's negligence. The case was tried to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff claims that (1) the court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence, (2) the court improperly failed to provide a curative instruction to the jury, (3) the defendant's counsel violated rule 3.4 (5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct during closing argument, depriving the plaintiff of a fair trial, and (4) the court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the verdict and to grant the plaintiff a new trial. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4043

AC41916 - State v. Jackson (Violation of probation; "The defendant, Sean Jackson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and imposing a sentence of six years of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he violated his probation, (2) the court erred in admitting hearsay testimony at the probation revocation hearing, and (3) the court abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence of six years of incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42888 - State v. Harris (Murder; robbery in first degree; carrying pistol without permit; "The defendant, Jermaine Harris, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder, robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted uncharged misconduct evidence, (2) his right to due process was violated when the prosecutor appealed to the emotions of the jurors and misstated evidence, and (3) his right to due process was violated when the state withheld material evidence. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42126 - State v. Auburn W. (Harassment in second degree; stalking in second degree; whether trial court improperly determined that defendant forfeited right to self-representation on basis of lack of competence; "The defendant, Auburn W., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of three counts of harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (2), one count of harassment in the second degree in violation of § 53a-183 (a) (3), and one count of stalking in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-181d (b) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly held that he forfeited his right to self-representation on the basis of a lack of competence. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC36358 - State v. Leniart (Murder; capital felony; "This case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court following its reversal of our judgment reversing the judgment of conviction of the defendant, George Michael Leniart, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and three counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53a-54b (5), (7) and (9), as amended by Public Acts 1995, No. 95-16, § 4. The sole remaining claim before us is whether the trial court's improper exclusion of certain evidence at trial violated the defendant's rights under the United States constitution. We conclude that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

AC41745 - State v. Brown (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Donald Brown, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his asserted justification of self-defense and, accordingly, that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Tort Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4040

SC20232 - Borelli v. Renaldi (Negligence; Municipal Police; Governmental and Qualified Immunity; "This appeal requires us to consider the narrow question of whether a town and its municipal police officers are shielded by governmental and qualified immunity from liability for the decision to initiate a high-speed police pursuit that lasted less than two minutes and ended in a fatal automobile accident. The plaintiff, Angela Borelli, administratrix of the estate of Brandon Giordano (decedent), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the town of Seymour (town) and three officers of the Seymour Police Department (department), Officer Anthony Renaldi, Officer Michael Jasmin and Sergeant William King. The plaintiff claims that the trial court incorrectly concluded that (1) General Statutes § 14-283 (d) imposes a discretionary rather than a ministerial duty on police officers "to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property" in determining whether to pursue a motorist who flees when an officer attempts to pull him or her over, and (2) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any issue of material fact remained regarding whether the decedent was an identifiable victim subject to imminent harm on the basis of the court's finding that there was no evidence in the record supporting that conclusion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Juvenile Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4039

SC20245 - In re Teagan K.-O. ("This case requires us to consider whether a Connecticut trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to adjudicate a newborn child neglected on the basis of "predictive neglect" when the parents relocated to another state shortly before the child's birth, purportedly with no intention of returning, and that state determined that Connecticut would be a more convenient forum to adjudicate this matter. The respondent father appeals from the trial court's decision denying his motion to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, to adjudicate the respondents' child, Teagan K.-O., neglected. The father contends that, irrespective of the fact that a petition to terminate the respondents' parental rights with respect to another child of theirs was pending in Connecticut when they relocated to Florida, a Connecticut trial court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Teagan's neglect petition because any neglect of her would never occur in this state. The commissioner contends that the determination by a Florida court that this state would be a more appropriate forum provided a proper basis for the Connecticut trial court's subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted by both states. See General Statutes §§ 46b-115 through 46b-115gg; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.501 et seq. (West 2012). We agree with the father's jurisdictional argument. The trial court, therefore, improperly denied his motion to dismiss the neglect petition.")


Connecticut Law Journal - June 23, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4038

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXI, No. 52, for June 23, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 922 - 922)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 198: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 253 - 392)
  • Volume 198: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Practice Book Revisions to the Rules Of Appellate Procedure being considered by the Supreme and Appellate Courts


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4032

AC42006 - State v. Dyous (Petition to extend psychiatric commitment of acquittee to jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board; "The defendant, Anthony Dyous (acquittee), appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the state's petition to extend his commitment to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board (board) for a period of four years. On appeal, the acquittee claims that the court improperly found that, at the time of the state's petition, he was mentally ill and dangerous to himself or others. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC36742, AC37544 - State v. Robert H. (Risk of injury to child; corpus delicti or corroboration rule; "This risk of injury case returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court; see State v. Robert H., 333 Conn. 172, 175, 214 A.3d 343 (2019) (Robert II); directing this court to consider fully the merits of the "corpus delicti claim" raised by the defendant, Robert H., in his direct appeal. See State v. Robert H., 168 Conn. App. 419, 422–23, 146 A.3d 995 (2016) (Robert I), rev'd, 333 Conn. 172, 214 A.3d 343 (2019). Our Supreme Court further directed this court to review the defendant's corpus delicti claim pursuant to its decision in State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88, 97, 215 A.3d 1104 (2019). We have considered the defendant's corpus delicti claim as directed and conclude that the judgments of conviction should be affirmed.")

AC42264 - State v. Magaraci (Assault in first degree; claim that state presented insufficient evidence to disprove defendant's theory of self-defense; credibility of witnesses; "The defendant, Anthony Magaraci, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). The defendant claims that (1) the state adduced insufficient evidence to support his conviction because it had failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense, and (2) the court improperly instructed the jury on self-defense. We conclude that the evidence sufficed to permit the jury, as the arbiters of the credibility of witnesses, reasonably to conclude that the defendant was the original aggressor and that he had stabbed the victims even though he could have safely retreated. We also conclude that the defendant waived any claim of instructional error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")