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.

New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4231

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:

Issue Brief: COVID-19 Housing Assistance - 2020-R-0314 - In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Connecticut implemented several programs to assist impacted renters, landlords, homeowners, and other vulnerable populations.

Issue Brief: Public Assistance Programs and COVID-19 - 2020-R-0294 - How have public assistance programs changed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Issue Brief: Remote Learning and the Digital Divide - 2020-R-0290 - When the COVID-19 pandemic hit Connecticut and the governor ordered all public schools closed for in-person classes, school districts had to immediately craft plans to enable students to continue to learn from home. This was an unprecedented challenge for the state and its public school districts.

Issue Brief: Retail CBD Sales - 2020-R-0287 - Prior to the passage of PA 19-3, under state law, CBD fell within the definition of "marijuana" and "cannabis-type substances" and thus was a controlled substance that could only be sold by medical marijuana dispensaries. Now the retail sale of CBD is generally legal under state law, as long as it is manufactured from hemp with THC concentrations below 0.3%, on a dry weight basis.

UPDATED: Municipal Authority to Address Blight - 2020-R-0310 - Briefly describe Connecticut laws authorizing municipalities to regulate and address blight. This report updates OLR Report 2017-R-0059.

Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect- 2020-R-0305 - What major changes have been made to Connecticut’s mandated reporter of child abuse and neglect statute since it was first codified in 1965? How has the list of designated mandated reporters changed during that time? This report updates OLR Report 2016-R-0197.


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4230

AC42031 - Tunick v. Tunick ("This case concerns a dispute among family members over the administration of assets held in a trust created by the family patriarch. The plaintiff Stephen M. Tunick appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Barbara Tunick, Roberta G. Tunick, and Richard S. DiPreta, administrator of the estate of Sylvia G. Tunick (estate). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that (1) the court improperly granted DiPreta's motion to strike a breach of contract count, (2) the court improperly rejected the plaintiff's claim that his causes of action as a remainder beneficiary did not become ripe until the death of the primary beneficiary, (3) genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the plaintiff's claims are time barred under General Statutes § 52-577, and (4) the court abused its discretion in declining to grant the plaintiff's motion to open the judgment. We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4229

AC43014 - State v. Freeman (Robbery in first degree; claim that trial court erred in denying motion to dismiss; "The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after his conditional plea of nolo contendere, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, arguing that the prosecution was time barred by the five year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 54-193 (b). We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC43016 - State v. Han (Sexual assault in the fourth degree; accelerated rehabilitation; "The defendant . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte terminating his participation in the program. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in terminating the defendant's participation in the accelerated rehabilitation program. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - November 24, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4228

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 21, for November 24, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 200 Conn. App. Replacement Pages 7 - 8
  • Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 669 - 720)
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 971 - 975)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 396 - 497)
  • Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 904)
  • Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4227

SC20273 - State v.Carey ("The defendant, Alanna R. Carey, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that any error relating to the admission of testimony from a witness called during the state's case on rebuttal, Mark Manganello, was harmless. Specifically, the defendant claims that Manganello's testimony fatally undermined her theory of self-defense and that, as a result, it likely had a substantial effect on the jury's verdict. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4223

AC42567 - Doe v. Flanigan ("This appeal arises out of an incident in which a third party, Charles Fullenwiley, assaulted the plaintiff, John Doe, by placing a sex toy against his buttocks after the named defendant, Stephen Flanigan, at the time a police officer employed by the defendant city of Waterbury, allegedly pushed the plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him. The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant on the fourth count of the plaintiff's second amended complaint, which alleged that, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n, the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the injuries he sustained arising out of Flanigan's negligent conduct. The fourth count of the plaintiff's complaint incorporated the allegations of the third count, which alleged that Flanigan acted negligently when he (1) pushed the plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, (2) failed to protect the plaintiff from Fullenwiley's assault, and (3) failed to report Fullenwiley's assault. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether (1) Flanigan engaged in wilful, rather than negligent, misconduct when he pushed the plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, and (2) the identifiable victim subject to imminent harm exception to governmental immunity did not apply to the plaintiff's allegation that Flanigan failed to protect the plaintiff from being sexually assaulted by Fullenwiley. Additionally, the defendant argues that we can affirm the judgment of the trial court on the alternative ground that Flanigan was not acting within the scope of his employment, and, therefore, the defendant could not be liable.

As to the first issue raised by the plaintiff, we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Flanigan's conduct was wilful or negligent. We also reject the defendant's claimed alternative ground for affirmance because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Flanigan, in fact, was acting within the scope of his employment when he pushed the plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him. As to the second issue raised by the plaintiff, we conclude that the court improperly rendered summary judgment on a ground not argued before it. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Juvenile Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4225

AC43710 - In re Ja'maire M (“On appeal, the respondent claims that, in terminating his parental rights, the trial court improperly relied on a finding that the child was neglected, which was made at a previous proceeding at which the respondent was not present. Because the respondent’s appeal constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the neglect judgment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights.”)


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4224

AC42986 - Commissioner of Labor v. Walnut Tire Shop, LLC (Wage collection statute (§ 31-72); motion for default; motion to open judgment of default; "The defendants, Walnut Tire Shop, LLC (company), and Ramon Balbuena, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open a default judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Labor. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court abused its discretion in denying that motion because they lacked actual notice of the plaintiff's action. We disagree and, accordingly, 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=4222

AC43344 - State v. Parker (Probation; "The defendant, Joshua Parker, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32 and sentencing him to thirty months of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly revoked his probation for failure to pay restitution without first making a finding that such failure to pay was wilful, as constitutionally required pursuant to Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1983), and (2) the state introduced insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant wilfully refused to pay restitution. We agree that the court did not make the constitutionally requisite finding that the defendant's failure to pay restitution was wilful and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new probation revocation hearing.")

AC41168, AC41644 - State v. Knox (Criminal possession of firearm; tampering with physical evidence; motion for judgment of acquittal; right to counsel; "This case involves two separate appeals. First, in the appeal in Docket No. AC 41168, the state appeals from the decision of the trial court granting the motion for judgment of acquittal filed by the defendant, Rickie Lamont Knox, with respect to the charge of tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155. The state contends that sufficient evidence existed to support this conviction. Second, in the appeal in Docket No. AC 41644, the defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217. The defendant contends that his postarrest statements to the police had been obtained following a violation of the prophylactic rule created by our Supreme Court in State v. Purcell, 331 Conn. 318, 203 A.3d 542 (2019), and, therefore, should have been excluded from evidence. The defendant also argues that the court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional rights by admitting into evidence certain inculpatory portions of his police interview while excluding related contextual portions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4221

SC20250 - State v. Manuel T. ("Following a jury trial, the defendant, Manuel T., was convicted of six counts of sexual assault and four counts of risk of injury to a child arising from the sexual abuse of his girlfriend's daughter, J. The defendant now appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of conviction. See State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51, 53, 198 A.3d 648 (2018). On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld (1) the admission into evidence of a video recording of a forensic interview of J by a nonmedical professional under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule, § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, because medical care was not the "primary purpose" of the interview, and (2) the exclusion of screenshot photographs of text messages purportedly sent by J to the defendant's niece on the ground that they had not been sufficiently authenticated. We disagree with the defendant's claim that a primary purpose standard applies to the medical treatment exception. We agree, however, that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had properly excluded the text messages, and we further conclude that this evidentiary error requires a new trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4220

Power of Attorney "Hot Powers" - 2020-R-0285 - Summarize Connecticut’s power of attorney “hot powers” statute.

School Mandated Reporting in Connecticut and Other States - 2020-R-0231 - Summarize and compare Connecticut laws to those in other states on mandatory reporting of suspected abuse or neglect in a school setting. Briefly describe the penalties for failure to report.

Connecticut's Automated Victim Notification System and How Other States Notify Victims - 2020-R-0288 - Briefly describe (1) Connecticut’s Statewide Automated Victim Information and Notification (SAVIN) system and (2) how other states notify victims.

Condominium Property Taxes - 2020-R-0224 - Since 2010, has the legislature considered bills that would tax condominiums at a different rate than other residences (e.g., detached single family homes)?

Issue Brief: Connecticut School Immunization Requirements - 2020-R-0295.



Juvenile Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4219

AC43883 - In re D'Andre T. (Termination of parental rights on the grounds of failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B) (i). "On appeal, the respondent does not challenge the underlying factual findings of the trial court but claims that the court denied her a fundamentally fair proceeding by treating her motion to transfer guardianship to her sister, Carmen B., with less regard than the petitions to terminate her parental rights. The respondent urges us to use our supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse the judgments terminating her parental rights and denying her motion to transfer guardianship, to award her a new trial, and to obligate the trial court to apply a new procedural rule that would require the Superior Court to make certain written findings in all cases in which a court is considering a transfer of guardianship motion and a petition to terminate parental rights concurrently. We decline to exercise our supervisory authority, and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - November 17, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4218

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 20, for November 17, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 586 - 668)
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 968 - 971)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 285 - 396)
  • Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 903 - 903)
  • Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases


Criminal Law Supreme Court Slip Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4216

SC20423 - State v. Rolon ("The defendant, Richard Rolon, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence seized after his warrantless detention in the parking lot of a multiunit apartment building, contending that he was not an "occupant" within the "immediate vicinity" of the premises subject to a search warrant under the exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement established in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981), and Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 193, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) (Summers exception). We agree and, therefore, reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court with direction to grant the defendant's motion to suppress.")

SC20428 - State v. Espino ("This is a companion case to State v. Rolon, ___ Conn. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2020), which we release today. The defendant, Yashira A. Espino, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that she was illegally detained, along with her codefendant, Richard Rolon, in a car in the parking lot of a multiunit apartment building in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution because the police lacked either a warrant or a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. She contends that the trial court improperly denied her motion to suppress evidence under these circumstances. The issue in this case, as in the companion case, is whether the defendant's detention was permissible under the exception to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement articulated in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981), and Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 193, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013) (Summers exception), which permits the police to detain "occupants" within the "immediate vicinity" of a premises subject to a search warrant. For the reasons explained in Rolon, we agree with the defendant that the Summers exception is inapplicable because she was not within the "immediate vicinity" of the apartment to be searched and, therefore, reverse the trial court's judgment.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4215

AC43170 - Wright v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented petitioner, Ian Wright, appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petition when it reasoned that the petitioner did not have a liberty interest in a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 54-125d. We dismiss the appeal.")


Criminal Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4212

AC41785 - State v. Lemanski (Operating motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor; plain error doctrine; "The defendant, Robert Lemanski, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his constitutional right to confrontation under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution was violated when the trial court improperly admitted testimonial hearsay into evidence, and (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding his alleged refusal to submit to a breath test at the time of his arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42763 - State v. Sebben (Reimbursement for costs of incarceration; summary judgment; "The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, instituted this action pursuant to General Statutes § 18-85a and § 18-85a-2 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, to recover $22,330, the assessed cost for 154 days of incarceration, from the self-represented defendant, Peter Sebben. See generally State v. Ham, 253 Conn. 566, 566–67, 755 A.2d 176 (2000); Alexander v. Commissioner of Administrative Services, 86 Conn. App. 677, 678, 862 A.2d 851 (2004). The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the state. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly granted the state's motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the assessed cost of his incarceration, (2) his right to equal protection was violated, (3) application of § 18-85a constituted an excessive fine in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution, (4) the court improperly denied his motion to reargue and (5) the court improperly denied his request for an extension of time for additional discovery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Family Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4214

AC42539 - Leonova v. Leonov ("The defendant, Stanislav Leonov, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff, Alina Leonova, which included a finding of contempt against the defendant, and from two postjudgment orders awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees incurred in connection with postdissolution proceedings and her defense of this appeal. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by improperly basing supplemental alimony awarded to the plaintiff on the defendant's gross, rather than net, bonus income, (2) acted in excess of its statutory authority when it ordered the parties to establish and to contribute to education savings plans established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 529 (§ 529 plans) for the benefit of each of the two minor children, (3) acted in excess of its statutory authority when it found the defendant in contempt for an alleged violation of the automatic orders set forth in Practice Book § 25-5, despite the fact that there was no contempt motion pending, (4) abused its discretion when it found the defendant in contempt for two violations of the automatic orders where the defendant's financial expenditures fell within the 'usual course of business' exception to the rule, (5) abused its discretion by failing to attribute an earning capacity to the plaintiff in determining alimony and child support, and (6) in violation of the directive of General Statutes § 46b-62 (a) and relevant decisional law, improperly awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees for representation during the marital dissolution proceedings, postjudgment matters and this appeal. We agree with the defendant's third claim only. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of dissolution only with respect to one of the contempt findings, and remand the case to the trial court with direction to vacate its finding that the defendant was in contempt with respect to one of the violations of the automatic orders alleged by the plaintiff. We affirm the judgment and postjudgment orders of the court in all other respects.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4213

AC42686 - Wright v. Giles ("The plaintiff, Ian Wright, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the defendants, Carlton Giles, Richard Sparraco, Scott Semple, and George Jepsen, to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Connecticut Law Journal - November 10, 2020

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4211

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXII, No. 19, for November 10, 2020 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 335: Connecticut Reports (Pages 525 - 585)
  • Volume 335: Orders (Pages 964 - 968)
  • Volume 335: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 201: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 225 - 284)
  • Volume 201: Memorandum Decisions (Pages 902 - 902)
  • Volume 201: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


1 2