The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Criminal Law & Procedure

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.")


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.")


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.")


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.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4023

AC41022 - State v. Marrero (Home invasion; burglary in first degree; assault in second degree; whether defendant was denied due process right to fair trial as result of prosecutorial improprieties; "The defendant, Nector Marrero, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered against him after a jury trial on charges of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (1), burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (3), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that he is entitled to the reversal of his conviction and a new trial on all charges because (1) improprieties by the prosecutor in different parts of his trial violated his due process right to a fair trial; (2) the trial court erred in not requiring the authentication of his voice on the audio recordings of certain allegedly self-incriminating phone conversations he was claimed to have had with his incarcerated girlfriend, Amber Greco, before admitting such recordings into evidence against him; and (3) the court improperly charged the jury on consciousness of guilt. We reject each of these claims and therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4022

SC20277 - State v. Rivera ("In this certified appeal, the defendant, Elvin G. Rivera, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (1), criminal mischief in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117 (a) (1), and threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1). On appeal, he claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the trial court had not abused its discretion by precluding him from cross-examining the state's key witness, Stephen Chase, about the facts underlying Chase's prior misdemeanor convictions of larceny in the sixth degree and breach of the peace, thereby violating his constitutional rights to confrontation and to present a defense under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4013

AC42115 - State v. Taupier (Threatening in second degree; motion to dismiss; claim that trial court improperly denied motion to dismiss because defendant's statements posted on Facebook were not true threats but were constitutionally protected free speech; "This case asks us to apply the "true threats" doctrine to assess whether the first amendment protects from criminal prosecution a person who posted on Facebook a series of statements that, among other things, advocated the killing of judges and the arson of courthouses. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, such statements constituted true threats for which an individual may be convicted without violating his right to free speech.

The defendant, Edward F. Taupier, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of five counts of threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the charges because his statements were protected speech under the first amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 4, of the Connecticut constitution. Because we determine that at least five of the defendant's statements constituted "true threats" as a matter of law and, thus, were not protected speech, we conclude that the court properly declined to dismiss the charges to which the defendant pleaded nolo contendere and that the defendant's conviction must be affirmed.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4005

AC40384 - State v. Lori T. (Custodial interference in second degree; "The defendant, Lori T., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of three counts of custodial interference in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-98 (a) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that § 53a-98 (a) (3) is unconstitutionally vague in its application to her and that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. We disagree with both claims, and, thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40224 - State v. Velazquez (Operation of motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs; sufficiency of evidence; "The self-represented defendant, Marcos A. Velazquez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a bench trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or both in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and (2) the court improperly admitted the testimony of a police officer with regard to the presence of a marijuana odor in the defendant's vehicle at the time he was involved in an accident. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40322 - State v. Milner (Murder; criminal possession of firearm; "The defendant, Chiffon Milner, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because (1) the court improperly relied on his inculpatory statements to a former friend, Kevin Barco, in the absence of substantial independent evidence corroborating the trustworthiness of those statements, in violation of the corpus delicti rule, and (2) even if the state satisfied the requirements of the corpus delicti rule with respect to the defendant's statements to Barco, Barco's testimony and that of the state's other witnesses was too unreliable to support the defendant's conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3985

AC42909 - State v. Vivo (Murder; assault in first degree; sentence enhancement pursuant to statute (§ 53-202k); "The defendant, John Vivo III, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider that motion. The defendant's claims in support of his position, however, challenge the validity of his conviction rather than any defect in his sentence or the sentencing proceeding. Therefore, we conclude that the court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3979

AC41975 - State v. Tinsley (Manslaughter in first degree; risk of injury to child; motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Darrell Tinsley, 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 in denying his motion to correct because his conviction for manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53-21, as amended by No. 95-142 of the 1995 Public Acts, violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We agree with the defendant and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3966

AC41856 - State v. Hernandez (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Jose Luis Hernandez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his prosecution when it sentenced him in absentia. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court violated his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his prosecution because it failed (1) to make an express finding that the defendant waived his right to be present, and (2) to notify the defendant, prior to sentencing him, that sentencing would proceed in his absence if he did not appear. We disagree and 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=3953

AC42104 - State v. Holley (Motion to correct illegal sentence; criminal possession of firearm; statutory interpretation; rule of lenity; "The defendant, Jubar T. Holley, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant's central claim on appeal is that the trial court improperly concluded that his consecutive sentences did not violate the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence by (1) relying on federal and sister state case law, rather than on Connecticut precedent, (2) applying an incorrect standard of review, and (3) failing to apply the rule of lenity. To resolve the defendant's appeal, we are required to determine whether the legislature, in enacting General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-217 (a) (1), the criminal possession of a firearm statute, intended to punish the possession of each firearm or to punish only once the act of possessing multiple firearms. Our resolution of this question informs our analysis of the defendant's ancillary claim that the trial court improperly failed to apply the rule of lenity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43221 - State v. Holmgren (Home invasion; burglary in first degree; sexual assault in third degree; "The defendant, Fredrik Holmgren, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (1), burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (3), and sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a (a) (1) (B). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the charges of home invasion and burglary in the first degree, and (2) the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of statements that he made to a police detective prior to his arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41448 - State v. Fredrik H. (Unlawful restraint in first degree; interfering with emergency call; criminal mischief in third degree; "The defendant, Fredrik H., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial,of unlawful restraint in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), interfering with an emergency call in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183b (a), and criminal mischief in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117 (a) (1) (A). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that he specifically intended to restrain the victim, and (2) the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence of certain uncharged misconduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3945

AC41937 - State v. Nusser (Larceny in first degree; burglary in third degree; criminal violation of restraining order; subject matter jurisdiction; motion for presentence confinement credit; "The defendant, Peter E. Nusser, appeals following the trial court's denial of his second motion for presentence confinement credit. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court abused its discretion in denying his second motion for presentence confinement credit, (2) the sentence he received, following the denial of his second motion, was illegal because it breached his plea agreement with the state, and (3) the failure of the Department of Correction (department) to implement the court's revised mittimus resulted in structural error and fundamental unfairness in the sentencing process. Because we conclude that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant's second motion, we remand the case to the trial court with direction to dismiss the motion.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3931

SC20341 - State v. Kosuda-Bigazzi ("The principal issue in this interlocutory public interest appeal, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, is whether police officers executing a search and seizure warrant for the home of the defendant, Linda Kosuda-Bigazzi, invaded her attorney-client privilege to the extent that the charges of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 brought against her should be dismissed pursuant to State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417, 22 A.3d 536 (2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1156, 132 S. Ct. 1095, 181 L. Ed. 2d 977 (2012). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied her motion to dismiss the charges because the police prejudiced all further prosecution against her by examining, reading, and publishing privileged information that was in the arrest warrant application, a prejudice so extreme that the only appropriate remedy is dismissal of the criminal charges, as we ordered in Lenarz.

We affirm the order of the trial court and the denial of the motion to dismiss.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3925

AC42651 - State v. Fortin ("The defendant, Michael Robert Fortin, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence of several instances of misconduct stemming from his prior use of the firearm that was used to shoot and kill the victim in this case, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial after a state’s witness inadvertently testified regarding a prior incident involving the defendant’s discharge of a flare gun that the state previously had conceded, and the trial court ruled, was inadmissible,and (3) his constitutional right to confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed into evidence certain hearsay testimony that he did not have a permit to carry a firearm. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3919

SC20132 - State v. Sawyer ("The defendant, Thomas William Sawyer, was convicted on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54-94a; of possession of child pornography in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196e. The defendant entered his plea following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress hundreds of photographs and a smaller number of videos of suspected child pornography that the police recovered from computer equipment and related media storage seized from the defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant appealed from his conviction to the Appellate Court, and the case was transferred to this court. On appeal, the defendant argues that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the issuing judge could not have reasonably inferred from descriptions in the search warrant affidavit of two photographs of nude children that the photographs were lascivious. This case requires us to decide whether the totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support a finding of probable cause to believe that a search of the defendant's residence would uncover evidence of possession of child pornography. Because we conclude that the affidavit did support this finding, we 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=3911

AC42267 - State v. Rosa (Murder; assault in first degree; criminal possession of firearm; unpreserved claim that state suppressed DNA evidence that was material to defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) and did not disclose it until after jury returned verdict; "The defendant, Tyrone Rosa, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5) and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant claims that the state suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Specifically, the defendant asserts that, either before his trial began or while the trial was ongoing, the state, via its agent, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's division of scientific services (division), acquired evidence that the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) reported that a DNA profile that was developed from the swabbing of a discarded sweatshirt found in the vicinity of the crime scene matched (CODIS match) a DNA sample collected from a convicted felon, Javier Otero. He asserts that this evidence, which was favorable to him and material for purposes of Brady, was not disclosed to the defense until after the jury had returned a guilty verdict. He asserts that this evidence would have bolstered his sole theory of defense that an unknown gunman committed the crimes and also would have discredited the state's key witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court because we conclude that the defendant has failed to prove that the CODIS match was material to his defense.")

AC41544 - State v. Bradbury (Criminal possession of firearm; carrying pistol without permit; assault in first degree; criminal attempt to commit robbery in first degree; "The defendant, Wayne S. Bradbury, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following the jury's guilty verdict, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). The defendant claims that, in light of the jury's not guilty finding on the remaining charges, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We 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=3900

AC43140 - State v. Richards (Murder; whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction; "The defendant, Jermain V. Richards, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a third jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction and (2) the court erred in not giving a special credibility instruction applicable to the testimony of a cooperating witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41962 - State v. Prince A. (Sexual assault in first degree; sexual assault in fourth degree; risk of injury to child; constancy of accusation doctrine discussed; "The defendant, Prince A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) § 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 the trial court improperly admitted testimony of a constancy of accusation witness to refute any negative inferences the jury might have drawn from the victim's delay in reporting the sexual assault because that witness mistakenly believed that there had been no delay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40991 - State v. Bornstein (Interlocutory appeal; violation of civil protection order; harassment in second degree; motion to dismiss; claim that state was collaterally estopped from pursuing criminal charges because relevant factual allegations had been subject of full evidentiary hearing at hearing on request for civil protection order that was denied; lack of final judgment; "The defendant, David S. Bornstein, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss charges of harassment and violation of a civil protection order.The motion asserted that the state was collaterally estopped from pursuing the charges against him. The state argues that the defendant's appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment or, in the alternative, denied on its merits. We agree with the state and dismiss the appeal.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3885

AC42745 - State v. Albert D. (Risk of injury to child; sexual assault in fourth degree; sexual assault in first degree; attempt to commit sexual assault in first degree; claim that defendant was entitled to new trial on basis of alleged prosecutorial improprieties during state's rebuttal closing argument; "The defendant, Albert D., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) and 53a-70 (a) (2), three counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), and six counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial improprieties during the state's rebuttal closing argument. Specifically, the defendant contends that the prosecutor (1) incorrectly stated that the state's experts were not allowed to meet with the victims, and (2) improperly vouched for her own credibility and the credibility of one of the state's witnesses. The defendant further argues that the improprieties resulted in a denial of his due process right to a fair trial pursuant to the six factor test set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987). We conclude that the prosecutor's comments with regard to the purported inability of the state's experts to meet with the victims constituted an impropriety that, nevertheless, did not deprive the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. We further conclude that the prosecutor's comments with respect to her own credibility and the credibility of one of the state's witnesses were not improper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction.")

AC42405 - State v. Hargett (Murder; claim that trial court's exclusion of evidence deprived defendant of right to present defense; "The defendant, Nasir R. Hargett, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder. In addition, the jury also found, pursuant to an interrogatory, that "the defendant employed the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony," and the court accordingly enhanced his sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his sixth amendment right to present a defense by excluding from evidence (a) a statement purportedly made by a bystander and (b) an autopsy toxicology report, (2) violated his right to due process by declining to give a jury instruction on self-defense, (3) abused its discretion by admitting firearm related evidence, and (4) violated his right to a fair trial by failing to grant his motion for a new trial or to dismiss the charges. The defendant also claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial impropriety that occurred during final argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3884

SC20193 - State v. Jackson (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; assault first degree; certification from Appellate Court; whether Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that trial court had not abused its discretion when it allowed state's belatedly disclosed expert witness on cell site location information to testify without first granting defense reasonable continuance to obtain its own expert; "The defendant, Raashon Jackson, appeals from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming his conviction of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a (a), and four counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). See State v. Jackson, 183 Conn. App. 623, 627, 193 A.3d 585 (2018). The defendant claims, among other things, that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to permit the state's expert witness on cell site location information (CSLI) to testify as to what that information revealed about the location of the defendant and his associates during the time the crimes occurred because the state disclosed the expert after voir dire began and only one week before evidence started, despite a court order issued six months earlier requiring the state to disclose any experts. Alternatively, the defendant argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny his related motion for a continuance to obtain his own CSLI expert. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the state's late disclosed expert witness to testify without first granting the defendant a reasonable continuance to obtain his own expert. Because we also conclude that this error was harmful, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13