SC21125 - State v. Enrrique H. ("This appeal requires us to determine the circumstances under which a defendant may be found guilty of violating a protective order and of criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition. Specifically, we must determine, among other things, the scope of the phrase ‘‘a case involving’’ the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, as used in General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A). The defendant, Enrrique H., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of one count of criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition while subject to a protective order in violation of § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A), and one count of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223. He argues that the trial court had improperly denied his motion to dismiss.

The defendant first claims that the criminal possession charge fails as a matter of law because his two preexisting protective orders were not issued ‘‘in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person,’’ as § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) requires. In support of this claim, he argues that, because his two protective orders arose from the alleged violations of statutes that did not include the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force as an element of the crimes, neither prosecution qualified as ‘‘a case involving’’ this subject. In the alternative, he claims that § 53a-217 (a) (4) (A) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him because there is no evidence that the courts that issued the protective orders made any factual findings regarding the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force. Finally, he claims that the criminal possession of a firearm or ammunition and criminal violation of a protective order charges fail as a matter of law because the underlying protective orders on which they are predicated violate the second amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree with these claims and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC46561 - State v. Nathan S. ("The defendant, Nathan S., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2), and risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted certain testimony from his son, U, regarding statements made to U by the defendant concerning the physical appearances of U’s middle school female classmates (a) pursuant to § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as evidence of other sexual misconduct by the defendant to establish that he had a propensity to engage in aberrant and compulsive sexual misconduct, and (b) pursuant to § 4-5 (c) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as evidence of the defendant’s specific intent to obtain sexual gratification for purposes of the charge of sexual assault in the fourth degree, and that he was harmed by the erroneous admission of that testimony, (2) the prosecutor engaged in impropriety during cross-examination of an expert witness for the defense by suggesting to the jury, without a scientific or evidentiary basis, that it could conduct its own review of certain DNA evidence to determine whether it matched the defendant’s DNA profile, even though the uncontradicted scientific expert testimony established that the defendant was excluded as a possible contributor to the DNA evidence, and (3) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict with respect to the charge of sexual assault in the fourth degree by failing to give a proper specific unanimity instruction to the jury. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• AC46561 Concurrence - State v. Nathan S.

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

SC20951 – State v. Lazaro C.-D. ("The defendant, Lazaro C.-D., appeals directly to this court from his conviction, following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly (1) denied his motion to suppress statements he had made to New Britain police detectives because he was in custody at the time but had not been advised of his Miranda rights, (2) determined that the victim’s statements to her mother, A, on the evening of the sexual assault were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, and (3) limited the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness regarding the verification processes applicable for U visa applications and the options a person who has overstayed a tourist visa has for remaining legally in the United States. The defendant also asks this court to review in camera nondisclosed, confidential material from the personnel file of one of the detectives who testified at the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress for the purpose of determining whether the file contains any material that was required to be disclosed to the defense pursuant to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.")

SC20858 – State v. Bester ("The defendant, Damond Bester, appeals directly to this court from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and, after a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant raises three unpreserved claims: (1) his right to confrontation under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution was violated when the state’s gunshot residue expert relied on the data and notes of a nontestifying state analyst who had performed the gunshot residue test but did not testify at trial, (2) his right to confrontation was violated when the prosecutor, during cross-examination of the defendant, elicited testimonial hearsay statements made by the defendant’s girlfriend and cousin, and (3) the prosecutor’s questions to the defendant on cross-examination improperly introduced into evidence facts outside of the record in violation of his due process right to a fair trial under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.")

SC20899– State v. Giovanni D. ("In this appeal, we clarify the standard for the admissibility of statements made by a child during a forensic interview under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule set forth in § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence (medical treatment exception). The defendant, Giovanni D., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of various sexual offenses against the minor victim, J. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) admitting into evidence certain statements made by J to a forensic interviewer under the medical treatment exception, and (2) denying his request for a special child witness credibility instruction. Although we agree with the defendant’s first claim that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain statements under the medical treatment exception, we conclude that the error was harmless. We are not persuaded by his second claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC48427 – Richardson v. Semple ("The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Connecticut (ACLU) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of litigating the issue of whether a certain video recording filed as an exhibit to a memorandum of law in support of a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, various employees of the Department of Correction (DOC), should be sealed pursuant to Practice Book § 11-20A. We conclude that the ACLU does not have a colorable claim of intervention as of right and, therefore, is not appealing from a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Constitutional Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46859 - State v. Daren S. ("The defendant, Daren S., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a (a) (3), and unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95. The defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged sexual assaults of the victim, A, by the defendant when she was a minor; (2) the court improperly admitted expert testimony on delayed reporting by victims of child sexual abuse because A was an adult when the charged conduct occurred and did not delay reporting that conduct; (3) the convictions of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the third degree amounted to multiple punishments for the same act in violation of the guarantee against double jeopardy set forth in the fifth amendment to the United States constitution as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment; and (4) the conviction of unlawful restraint in the first degree cannot stand because, consistent with our Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), the restraint used was merely incidental to his commission of sexual assault in the first degree. We reject the defendant’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Constitutional Law,
• Criminal Law & Procedure

AC47294 - State v. Angel A. ("The defendant, Angel A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-54a, assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), and criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223 (c) (2). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) violated his right to jury unanimity by discharging the jury before disclosing to the parties a postverdict comment made to the court by a member of the jury, C.A., following the acceptance of the verdict that she ‘‘[felt] a little guilty about the attempted murder charge,’’ and (2) violated his right to a fair trial by denying his request to question C.A. at a posttrial hearing about why she made that postverdict comment. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• AC47294 Concurrence - State v. Angel A.
• AC47294 Dissent - State v. Angel A.

AC47503 - State v. Benson ("The defendant, Richard Benson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following his entry of guilty pleas pursuant to the Alford doctrine, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a) (1) (A), criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c, and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the court violated his right to self-representation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution by failing to canvass him after he clearly and unequivocally asserted that he wanted to represent himself. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46652 - State v. Ragalis ("The defendant, Ryan E. Ragalis, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60d1 and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle and assault in the second degree, (2) his conviction of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle and assault in the second degree violates the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitution, and (3) the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury in response to a note misled the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20865 - State v. Cooper ("After a jury trial, the defendant, Jahmari Cooper, was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) for fatally shooting the victim, Jeri Kollock, Jr., when the defendant was seventeen years old. In this direct appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant claims that (1) the circumstances of his custodial police interrogation do not establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights under the federal constitution, (2) even if this court concludes that the federal constitutional requirements were satisfied, he is entitled to greater protection under our state constitution, (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal arguments deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial, and (4) the trial court erred in giving the jury a consciousness of guilt instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46997 - State v. Owens ("The self-represented defendant, Marvin Owens, appeals from the judgments of the trial court finding him in violation of the conditions of his probations and revoking his probations pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss, which alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial and of the 120 day guideline contained in § 53a-32, (2) the court violated his constitutional right to self-representation, (3) the court found that he violated the conditions of his probations on the basis of insufficient evidence, and (4) the state violated his due process rights by failing to correct false or misleading testimony. We affirm the judgments of the court.")

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

SC20728 - State v. Correa ("This appeal requires us to examine, among other things, the level of particularity required for a warrant to search and seize a cell phone's data. The defendant, Sergio J. Correa, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder with special circumstances, two counts of arson in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of home invasion. He claims that his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution were violated when the police (1) seized his cell phone without a warrant, and (2) obtained a warrant to search and seize "all data" on the cell phone. Assuming the seizure of the defendant's cell phone was constitutional, we conclude that the warrant violated the fourth amendment because it was insufficiently particular. Accordingly, the evidence obtained from the defendant's cell phone should have been suppressed. However, we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction because we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.")

AC47370 - State v. Wright ("The defendant, Randy A. Wright, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of sexual assault in the second degree and one of his convictions of risk of injury to a child, (2) the trial court improperly denied his midtrial request for a lengthy continuance in order to seek new counsel or prepare to represent himself, (3) the trial court erred in failing to advise him of the consequences of failing to appear and in trying and sentencing him in absentia after he absconded during his trial, (4) the trial court improperly denied the request by the defendant's counsel, Vincent Fazzone, for a mistrial when the defendant failed to appear on the second day of evidence, (5) the trial court improperly failed to sua sponte declare a mistrial and remove Fazzone as defense counsel, and (6) the trial court improperly prevented Fazzone from cross-examining the victim about a prior accusation of sexual misconduct that she allegedly had made. We dismiss the appeal as to the defendant's sixth claim and otherwise affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC46683 - State v. Trice ("The defendant, Shife Trice, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-135 (a) (1) (B). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly failed to conduct, sua sponte, an independent inquiry into his competence, (2) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction, (3) the court violated his constitutional right to self-representation, and (4) the court abused its discretion by admitting a certain hearsay statement into evidence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20802 - State v. McFarland ("In August, 1987, the decomposed bodies of the victims, Fred Harris and his son, Gregory Harris, were found murdered in an apartment they shared in Hamden. The crime went unsolved until 2019, when scientific advancements in DNA testing led to the arrest of the defendant, Willie McFarland. The defendant now appeals from his conviction of both murders, following a jury trial in 2022. The primary issue on appeal is whether the thirty-two year delay between the 1987 murders and his 2019 arrest violated the defendant's right to due process under the federal and state constitutions. The defendant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) declining to order a new competency evaluation after previously finding him competent to stand trial, and (2) finding that a deceased witness' statements included in police reports were not admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule because they did not manifest the required guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")

• SC20802 Concurrence - State v. McFarland
• SC20802 Second Concurrence - State v. McFarland
• SC20802 Third Concurrence - State v. McFarland

AC47138 - State v. William A. ("The defendant, William A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) pursuant to Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), the state violated his fifth amendment right to remain silent when the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony during the state's case-in-chief and commented during closing argument about the defendant's post-Miranda silence, (2) the prosecutor's improper question about the defendant's post-Miranda silence implicated the defendant's constitutional right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and thereby implied that the defendant had to prove his innocence, in violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), (3) the prosecutor engaged in improprieties during the trial and closing argument that deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial, and (4) the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt when there was no evidence to support such an instruction and the instruction did not comply with the model Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions. We agree that the prosecutor impermissibly asked a question and elicited testimony about the defendant's post-Miranda silence in violation of Doyle and conclude that the state has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.")

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

SC20781 - State v. Jacques ("The defendant, Jean Jacques, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his state constitutional right to a probable cause hearing by denying his request for a second probable cause hearing after this court reversed his previous conviction and remanded the case for a new trial in State v. Jacques, 332 Conn. 271, 294, 210 A.3d 533 (2019), (2) violated his confrontation clause rights under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, as well as abused its discretion, by admitting Tywan Jenkins' written statement to the police as a prior inconsistent statement under State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597, 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986), and (3) abused its discretion in finding that the state had made a prima facie showing that the testimony of Danny Vazquez, a jailhouse informant, was reliable and admissible under General Statutes § 54-86p. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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

AC46967 - State v. Henry B.-A. ("The defendant, Henry B.-A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial as a result of prosecutorial improprieties that allegedly occurred during the prosecutor's closing and rebuttal arguments. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC46643 - State v. Calderon-Perez ("The defendant, Jayson Calderon-Perez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (6) and breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court deprived him of his right to present a defense under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution by (1) excluding, as irrelevant, evidence of his physical appearance six months after the crime, (2) prohibiting a defense witness from testifying due to late disclosure, (3) preventing the defense from presenting testimony from an expert in video graphics, and (4) limiting the defendant's cross-examination of a state's witness. In addition, the defendant claims that the prosecutor engaged in impropriety during the state's rebuttal closing argument, thereby depriving the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution. We conclude that the trial court's exclusion of evidence of the defendant's appearance six months after the crime violated the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.")

AC47038 - State v. Colon ("The defendant, Israel Colon, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional plea of nolo contendere to illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 29-38 (a) and possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a) (1) (A). The defendant entered that plea after the court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a motor vehicle stop. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court properly denied the motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20785 - State v. McLaurin ("A jury found the defendant, Gregory E. McLaurin, guilty of numerous offenses related to a 2018 robbery of a Smashburger restaurant in Milford. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the trial court had deprived him of his right to due process under the federal constitution by denying his motion to suppress a one-on-one showup identification of him by a restaurant employee. See State v. McLaurin, 216 Conn. App. 449, 466, 285 A.3d 104 (2022). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction, concluding that the exigencies of the investigation justified the police’s use of the showup identification procedure and, therefore, that the identification was not unnecessarily suggestive. See id., 466, 470, 479. We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. See State v. McLaurin, 346 Conn. 903, 287 A.3d 136 (2023). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court and conclude that the defendant’s constitutional right to due process was not violated because, even if the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, the identification was reliable.")

• SC20785 Dissent - State v. McLaurin

SC20883 - State v. Traynham ("The defendant, Rickey Traynham, in collaboration with his accomplice, Jordan Rudel, conspired to rob the victim, Rondell Atkinson. After telling the victim that they would pay him for a ride in his vehicle, the defendant and Rudel forced the victim to drive to a park in Woodbridge. Upon arriving at the park, the defendant and Rudel ordered the victim out of the car and took his wallet, watch, and cell phone. Both men then brandished firearms and each shot the victim, fatally wounding him. After the shooting, Rudel confided in two people about what he and the defendant had done to the victim: Adrianna Santiago, his then girlfriend and the mother of his children; and Monique Jackson, his father’s longtime girlfriend. In the present case, the trial court permitted the state to introduce Rudel’s statements to Santiago and Jackson into evidence against the defendant as dual inculpatory statements under the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule.

The sole issue in this direct appeal is whether the trial court improperly allowed the testimony from Santiago and Jackson as dual inculpatory statements under the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. Because Rudel’s statements were indisputably against his penal interest and were sufficiently trustworthy, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20855 - State v. Maharg (“On appeal, the defendant raises two claims, challenging only his murder conviction. The defendant does not challenge his conviction of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. First, the defendant claims on appeal that he was deprived of his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and against self-incrimination because, notwithstanding the fact that the trial court properly suppressed statements he had made during an almost thirteen hour police interrogation, including his confession that he murdered Conley with a hatchet, the prosecutor and the court extensively relied on those statements in bringing about his conviction of murder. He further asserts that the three experts who testified at trial relied on an investigative report by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME report) that referred to the suppressed confession to develop their expert reports and findings, rendering the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair.

Second, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting statements he had made while in the emergency room, in which he confessed to the murder. He argues that, because those statements were made shortly after, and were a product of, his earlier, involuntary confession, the taint from that earlier confession carried over and rendered his hospital confession equally involuntary and violative of due process. We reject both claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Concurrence

• Posted in:
• Constitutional Law,
• Criminal Law & Procedure

AC46936 - State v. Walker (Carrying a pistol without a permit; persistent felony offender; criminal possession of a pistol; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional rights (1) to be present at all critical stages of his prosecution when it determined that he waived that right and tried and sentenced him in absentia, and (2) to counsel of his choice when it denied his motion for a continuance to retain substitute counsel. We disagree with the defendant’s claim that his constitutional right to counsel was violated. We agree, however, that the trial court improperly determined that he had waived his right to be present at trial and sentencing as to the charge of being a persistent felony offender and therefore reverse the judgment as to that charge only and remand the case for resentencing on the remaining two convictions.”)

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

AC46982 - State v. Griffin (Manslaughter in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that ‘self-defense does not encompass a preemptive strike’ and (2) the state improperly infringed upon his constitutional right to remain silent when, in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), it impermissibly commented on his post-Miranda silence during rebuttal closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46830 - State v. Orlando F. (Attempt to commit robbery in first degree; robbery in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) admitted into evidence testimony by a lay witness who identified him from a surveillance video recording during trial and (2) committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury about that witness’ identification. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

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

SC20965 - State v. Sullivan (Unlawful restraint in the second degree; sexual assault in the fourth degree; attempt to commit sexual assault in the third degree; sexual assault in the third degree; “In this certified appeal, the defendant claims that the prosecutor in this case, State’s Attorney Anne Mahoney, engaged in certain improprieties during her closing argument that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We conclude that, although the prosecutor’s statements were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Dissent

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

AC48082 - 62-64 Bank Street, LLC v. Amelio ("In this summary process appeal, the self-represented defendant, Carmine Amelio, appeals from the judgment of possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, 62-64 Bank Street, LLC, as well as from the court's denial of his motion to reargue. On October 11, 2024, the plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that it is (1) jurisdictionally late pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35 (b) and/or (2) moot because the defendant is no longer in possession of the premises at issue. On February 5, 2025, we denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and indicated that an opinion would follow. This opinion sets forth the reasoning for our decision. . . .

The motion to dismiss is denied. In this opinion the other judges concurred.")

AC47702 - ECR 2 LLC v. Thompson ("In this summary process action, the defendant, Raschid Thompson, appeals from the judgment of possession, rendered after a court trial, in favor of the plaintiff, ECR 2 LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying his motion for a continuance of the trial date and refusing to consider his motion to preclude evidence and testimony that had not previously been disclosed by the plaintiff; (2) applied the wrong legal standard in rejecting his special defense of equitable nonforfeiture; and (3) erred in rejecting his special defense that he had a right to cure, and did cure, his nonpayment of rent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Constitutional Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47618 - In re Elena M. ("The respondent father, Christopher W., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, terminating his parental rights as to his minor child, Elena M., on the ground that he failed to achieve a sufficient degree of rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i) and (E). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) violated his constitutional right to procedural due process by denying his oral motion for a continuance during the trial on the operative petition to terminate his parental rights, or (2) in the alternative, the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We conclude that, in denying the motion for a continuance, the court did not (1) violate the respondent’s right to due process or (2) abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Constitutional Law,
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45916 - State v. Abdulaziz (Health insurance fraud; “The defendant claims that his conviction of health insurance fraud cannot be reconciled with his simultaneous acquittal, based upon the same alleged underlying conduct, of larceny in the first degree by defrauding a public community in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2017) § 53a-122 (a) (4). Specifically, he argues that the court had acquitted him of larceny in the first degree based upon the state’s failure to prove the ‘obtaining’ and ‘value’ elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt and, thus, that it should also have acquitted him of health insurance fraud, which he claims required proof of those same elements to convict him in this case. He further argues that the court later compounded its initial error by reversing his ‘acquittal on the “value” element of larceny in the first degree when it ruled on the state’s [posttrial] motion to correct an illegal sentence.’ On that basis, he claims on appeal that the court (1) violated the prohibition against successive prosecutions under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution by reversing his acquittal on the value element of the larceny charge, and (2) violated his constitutional right to due process by convicting him of health insurance fraud ‘without finding every fact necessary to constitute the crime.’ We reject the defendant’s claims and affirm his challenged conviction of health insurance fraud.”)

AC47093 - State v. Toste (Murder; sentence modification; “The defendant, William Toste, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for a sentence modification pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-39. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in finding that he had failed to establish good cause to modify his sentence. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC46753 - State v. Marciano (Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; motion to suppress; “On appeal, the state claims that no constitutional violation occurred because, at all relevant times, the arresting officer was acting in his community caretaking capacity. Alternatively, the state argues that, even if the officer was not acting in his community caretaking capacity, the defendant was not unlawfully seized because the officer’s conduct did not constitute a show of authority sufficient to cause a reasonable person in the defendant’s position to believe that he was not free to leave. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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