SC19549 - State v. Benedict ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court deprived the defendant, Adam Benedict, of his right to a fair trial by denying his request to strike a juror for cause when the defendant had shown that the juror was a police officer with possible ties to the agency investigating the defendant's case. In his second trial, the jury, including the challenged juror, found the defendant guilty of one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (6), and not guilty of two additional counts under the same statute.The defendant appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment after concluding that the trial court properly had denied his challenge of the juror for cause.State v. Benedict, 158 Conn. App. 599, 620, 119 A.3d 1245 (2015).The defendant claims that the challenged juror's bias should have been conclusively presumed because the juror was a Southbury police officer who reported to a Connecticut state trooper and other Connecticut state troopers who investigated the defendant's criminal charges.We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

AC37947 - State v. Norman P. ("The defendant, Norman P., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of sexual assault in a spousal relationship in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70b, one count of assault of an elderly person in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60b, and one count of assault of an elderly person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a. On appeal, the defendant claims, among other things, that the trial court improperly (1) refused to admit into evidence full written statement to the police after portions of the statement had been introduced by the state, and (2) refused to mark for identification the complainant's privileged records from Interval House, an organization that provides counseling and other services to domestic violence victims, as well as declined to conduct an in camera inspection of these records. We agree that the court improperly excluded the defendant's complete statement to the police, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Because one of the remaining evidentiary issues is likely to arise again on remand, we address that claim as well. To that end, we agree with the defendant that the court improperly refused to mark the Interval House records for identification and improperly refused to conduct an in camera review of the Interval House records after the defendant made the requisite threshold showing pursuant to State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 179–80, 471 A.2d 949 (1984).")