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 Appellate Court Opinions

by Booth, George

 

AC40489 - State v. Arnold (Motion to correct illegal sentence; "The defendant, Earl Arnold, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Fasano, J., denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims, for the first time, that his current sentence is illegal because the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information at his sentencing. We conclude that this claim is not reviewable and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40185 - State v. Lane (Assault in first degree; "The defendant, Ahmaad Jamal Lane, 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) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion for disqualification of the trial court judge and (2) admitting into evidence two photographs of the victim's injuries. We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42039 - State v. Gordon (Larceny of elderly person by embezzlement in second degree; ""The defendant, Tamara Gordon, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny of an elderly person by embezzlement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 (1) and 53a-123 (a) (5). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly admitted into evidence a testimonial hearsay statement of the alleged victim, Robert Duke, Sr. (Duke), who died prior to trial, in violation of the defendant's right to confrontation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, and (2) she was deprived of her due process rights when the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial impropriety by making substantive use of Duke's testimonial hearsay statement in her closing rebuttal argument. Because we conclude that the court improperly admitted Duke's testimonial statement for substantive purposes, in contravention of the defendant's right to confrontation, we do not need to reach the merits of the defendant's prosecutorial impropriety claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.")