The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 41, for April 13, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 336: Orders (Pages 927 - 930)
• Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 203: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 742 - 817)
• Volume 203: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC18973 - State v. Komisarjevsky (Murder; Whether defendant denied fair trial as a result of prejudicial pretrial publicity; whether defendant denied a fair trial by state's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence."The principal issue in this appeal is whether Connecticut's individual voir dire process protected the right of the defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, to a fair trial by assessing and mitigating the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity about this particularly notorious case involving a home invasion in Cheshire that resulted in multiple fatalities. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of, among other crimes, six counts of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-54b. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motions to change the venue of his trial from the judicial district of New Haven (New Haven), (2) denied his challenges for cause to twelve prospective jurors, and (3) denied his motions to reopen the evidence, for a mistrial, or for a continuance because of the state's belated disclosure of certain letters written by the defendant's accomplice, Steven Hayes. The defendant also contends that the trial court unconstitutionally applied the stringent conditions of confinement set forth in General Statutes § 18-10b to the defendant when he was resentenced after his death sentence was vacated. Finally, the defendant contends that the state deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial by (1) failing to disclose certain communications among various Cheshire police officers during and after the response to the home invasion, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and (2) failing to correct materially false expert testimony about a highly inflammatory photograph of female genitalia found on the defendant's mobile phone in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959). We disagree with all of these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC42885, AC42886 - Peterson v. iCare Management, LLC ("These two appeals arise from consolidated cases. The defendants in both actions, iCare Management, LLC, SecureCare Realty, LLC, and SecureCare Options, LLC (defendants), appeal from the judgments of the trial court denying their motions for summary judgment, in which they argued that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motions because the plaintiffs' claims were previously litigated in an earlier action. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Land Use Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC43047 - Sanchez v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed his due process claim as procedurally defaulted, (2) dismissed his actual innocence claim on the ground of res judicata, and (3) denied his ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claim. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC43372 - Carter v. Commissioner of Correction (Fifth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. "The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in dismissing in part his habeas petition on the grounds that, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and viola0tion of his right to due process were successive and barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. We dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43233 - State v. Cheryl J. (Criminal violation of protective order; "The defendant, Cheryl J., appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding her guilty of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to prove that she had the requisite intent to violate the protective order and (2) § 53a-223 is unconstitutionally vague as applied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42788 - State v. Cicarella (Larceny in first degree; motion to dismiss; conditional plea of nolo contendere; subject matter jurisdiction; mootness; "The defendant, James J. Cicarella, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional plea of nolo contendere to larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Practice Book § 41-8 (1) in which he claimed that the Madison Police Department did not have jurisdiction to investigate and arrest him because the alleged crime occurred in Wallingford. The state disagrees and, in addition, contends that the appeal is moot. The state argues that the defendant failed to challenge all of the bases for denying the motion set forth in the court's memorandum of decision. We agree with the state, and, because we cannot afford the defendant any practical relief, we dismiss his appeal as moot.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 40, for April 6, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 432 - 452)
• Volume 336: Orders (Pages 925 - 927)
• Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 203: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 613 - 742)
• Volume 203: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Supreme Court Pending Cases
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC20396 - State v. Battle (Conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree; Whether Appellate Court correctly determined that, under General Statutes § 53a-32, trial court, following a probation revocation, may impose a sentence that includes a period of special parole."The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 53a-32 (d) affords a trial court the authority to impose a sentence that includes a period of special parole following a probation violation and revocation. The defendant, Reggie Battle, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court remanding the case to the trial court with direction to deny his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. See State v. Battle, 192 Conn. App. 128, 147, 217 A.3d 637 (2019). On appeal, the defendant contends that the Appellate Court improperly construed § 53a-32 (d) (4) in concluding that the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation was not illegal. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC43484 - State v. Love (Assault in first degree; carrying pistol without permit; motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Jamie Love, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred by failing to appoint counsel pursuant to General Statutes § 51-296 (a) and State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614, 922 A.2d 1065 (2007). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC41235 - State v. Foster (Assault in first degree; criminal possession of firearm; claim that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction; sovereign citizen claim that state and federal governments lack constitutional legitimacy and therefore have no authority to regulate defendant's behavior. "The defendant, Hassan Foster, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a court trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1) and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). He claims that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case and personal jurisdiction over him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC43836 - Baltas v. Commissioner of Correction (Failure of petitioner to address threshold question of whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal; "Following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, the self-represented petitioner, Joe Baltas, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing as moot his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal.")

AC42933 - Coccomo v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim that trial counsel rendered deficient performance in manner in which he responded to evidence of petitioner's blood alcohol content; "This habeas corpus action arises out of the conviction of the petitioner, Tricia Coccomo, of multiple offenses related to a drunken driving accident in which she caused the death of three individuals. She appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that her trial counsel had not rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in the manner in which he responded to evidence of the petitioner's (1) blood alcohol content and (2) consciousness of guilt. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC43145 - Georges v. Commissioner of Correction (Whether habeas court improperly concluded that petitioner had not established that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in advising him of immigration consequences of plea of nolo contendere; "The petitioner, Wendy Georges, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that the petitioner had not established deficient performance on the part of his trial counsel in advising him of the immigration consequences of his nolo contendere plea to a charge of reckless manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (3). The petitioner now challenges the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43702 - Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc. ("In this action, brought pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (act), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq., the plaintiff, Diane Luth, appeals from the summary judgment, rendered by the trial court, in favor of her former employer, the defendant, OEM Controls, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in rendering summary judgment on her two count complaint sounding in gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC43702 Appendix - Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc.

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42737 - Giordano v. Giordano ("In this dissolution matter, the defendant, Carl V. Giordano, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting two postjudgment motions filed by the plaintiff, Renee Giordano. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's (1) motion for contempt and (2) motion for appellate attorney's fees. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43509 - Boyd-Mullineaux v. Mullineaux ("The plaintiff, Jennifer Boyd-Mullineaux, appeals from the decision of the trial court denying her postjudgment motion for contempt as to a claimed arrearage for unallocated alimony and child support. She claims that the court incorrectly determined that, according to the parties' separation agreement, she was not entitled to receive as unallocated alimony and child support a percentage of profit distributions received by the defendant, Daniel Mullineaux, from his purchased membership interest in a company. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43959 - In re Riley B. (Termination of parental rights; "The respondent mother, Jacquanita B., 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 daughter, Riley B. On appeal, the respondent argues that the court deprived her of substantive due process as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution because there was no compelling reason, as required under the strict scrutiny standard, to sever the respondent's liberty interest in the integrity of her family while the parties waited to learn whether guardianship of the child could be transferred to a maternal relative in New Jersey. We conclude that the record is inadequate to review the respondent's unpreserved constitutional claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44264 - In re Kiara Liz V. (Termination of parental rights; "The respondent father, Luis V., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families (commissioner), terminating his parental rights as to his minor child, Kiara Liz V. (Kiara), pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) improperly denied his request for a continuance and (2) erred in determining that the termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of Kiara. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 39, for March 30, 2021 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 336: Connecticut Reports (Pages 386 - 431)
• Volume 336: Orders (Pages 924 - 925)
• Volume 336: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 203: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 419 - 613)
• Volume 203: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

SC20494 - Casey v. Lamont ("...we turn to the matter before us, which requires this court to consider the extent of the governor's authority to issue executive orders during the civil preparedness emergency he declared pursuant to General Statutes § 28-9 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, we consider whether the defendant, Governor Ned Lamont, lawfully issued certain executive orders that limited various commercial activities at bars and restaurants throughout the state. To that end, we must determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a "serious disaster" pursuant to § 28-9 and whether that statute empowers the governor to issue the challenged executive orders. Because we conclude that § 28-9 provides authority for the governor to issue the challenged executive orders, we also consider whether § 28-9 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the governor in violation of the separation of powers provision of the Connecticut constitution. See Conn. Const., art. II. We conclude that the statute passes constitutional muster.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20335 - State v. Davis (Murder; right to counsel; whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's motions to dismiss his attorney; whether the defendant's right to counsel was violated when the trial court failed to inquire about an alleged conflict of interest between the defendant and his attorney; whether the trial court properly allowed three lay witnesses to testify that the defendant was the person on a surveillance videotape; "Following a jury trial, the defendant, Brock Davis, was convicted of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. The trial court, Gold, J., rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and sentenced the defendant to fifty years of imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his right to the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States constitution by (1) denying his motions to dismiss defense counsel, Kirstin B. Coffin, without first adequately inquiring into certain bases for his motions, namely, that defense counsel did not diligently provide him with copies of the state's discovery materials or investigate information he had provided to her; that, during a meeting with her investigator and the defendant, she allowed her investigator to recommend that he plead guilty; and that she violated unspecified professional and ethical legal standards; and (2) failing to conduct any inquiry into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest. We disagree that the trial court inadequately inquired into the bases for the defendant's motions to dismiss defense counsel. We agree, however, that the trial court improperly failed to inquire into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest, and, accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC43415 - Brown v. Cartwright ("The plaintiff, Ryan K. Brown, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a trial to a jury, rendered in favor of the defendants, David Cartwright, Ironhorse Auto, LLC, operating as Central Hyundai of Plainfield, and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges the propriety of the verdict on three grounds: (1) the court's failure to timely deliver the plaintiff's exhibits to the jury deprived him of a fair verdict; (2) the jury did not follow the court's instructions to consider all the evidence; and (3) opposing counsel's statements during cross-examination unfairly prejudiced the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC42736 - Starke v. Goodwind Estate Assn., Inc. (Common Interest Ownership Act (§ 47-200 et seq.); "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court of his complaint against the defendant, The Goodwin Estate Association, Inc., brought pursuant to the Common Interest Ownership Act (act), General Statutes § 47-200 et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his complaint as moot, after he lost title to his condominium unit in a foreclosure proceeding, because the damages he claimed included damages for personal property, namely, window treatments, which, he alleges are not contingent on his ownership of the condominium unit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC42496 - Lindquist v. Freedom of Information Commission (Administrative appeal; Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.); whether trial court properly concluded that Freedom of Information Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that redacted records were exempt from disclosure under statute (§ 1-210 (b) (1)); "The self-represented plaintiff, Richard Lindquist, at all relevant times, a tenured professor at the defendant University of Connecticut Health Center (health center), appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the final decision of the defendant Freedom of Information Commission (commission), in which the trial court concluded that the commission correctly dismissed the plaintiff's request for certain documents of the health center relating to his annual performance review. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court failed to consider whether the commission failed to apply various provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq., including General Statutes §§ 1-200 (6), 1-210 (b) (2), 1-213 and 1-225, and General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 1-214, and chapters 563 and 563a of the General Statutes, (2) the trial court improperly concluded that the commission properly applied § 1-210 (b) (1) and (e) (1) of the act to the records at issue, (3) the trial court improperly rejected the due process claim raised by the plaintiff, and (4) the commission failed to comply with General Statutes §§ 1-210 (b) (2) and 10a-154a. We agree, in part, with the plaintiff's second claim, as it relates to § 1-210 (e) (1), that he is entitled to judgment in his favor requiring the disclosure of the final individual comments and ratings by the committee members that were delivered to the dean of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine (dean), and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment for the plaintiff. In light of our resolution on the basis of the plaintiff's second claim, we need not reach the plaintiff's other claims.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Freedom of Information Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42807 - State v. Lyons (Possession of controlled substance; sale of controlled substance; possession of drug paraphernalia; possession of controlled substance within 1500 feet of school; possession of drug paraphernalia within 1500 feet of school; operation of drug factory; theft of firearm; negligent storage of firearm; motion to suppress; "The state of Connecticut appeals from the judgments of the trial court dismissing informations brought against the defendants, Gavin Lyons, David Gordon, Prince Gordon and Zipporah Greene-Walters, following its granting of motions to suppress filed by the defendants. On appeal, the state claims that the court improperly (1) determined that Lyons met his burden of proving an expectation of privacy in the areas searched by law enforcement agents and, thus, allowed Lyons to proceed with his motion to suppress, and (2) granted the defendants' motions to suppress items seized during a search of a residence located at 351 Noble Avenue in Bridgeport. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions