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.

Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=804

AC38669 - Isenburg v. Isenburg ("The plaintiff, Elizabeth Isenburg, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, awarding her limited damages and other relief against the defendant, Matthew Isenburg, on multiple claims against him. The following facts, as found by the trial court, are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a relationship for fourteen years, from 1998 to 2012. During that period, the plaintiff lived in the defendant’s home. Long before the parties’ relationship began, the defendant owned an extensive collection of early photographs and photographic ephemera (photographic collection), which he ultimately sold in 2012 for fifteen million dollars. Several months after the sale of the photographic collection, the parties’ relationship ended, and the plaintiff moved out of the defendant’s home." ...

"On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by: (1) excluding large portions of certain exhibits she had offered into evidence at trial; (2) not recusing itself, sua sponte, from the case; (3) finding that there was no express or implied contract between her and the defendant; (4) finding that the defendant did not owe her any fiduciary duty, much less breach such a duty to her; and (5) failing to award her certain other specific damages and property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=803

AC39232 - Heyward v. Judicial Dept. ("In this action arising out of alleged workplace discrimination, the plaintiff Theresa D. S. Heyward appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Judicial Department of the state of Connecticut. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to strike her hostile work environment and racial discrimination claims. We disagree and, accordingly, 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=802

AC38940 - Baronio v. Stubbs ("The defendant, Donna Stubbs, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding her and the plaintiff, Pascal Baronio, joint legal custody of their minor child. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court: (1) ‘erred in presuming that shared physical custody was in the child’s best interest where there was not an agreement by the defendant to an award of joint legal custody within the meaning of General Statutes § 46b-56a (b)’; and (2) ‘committed plain error by stating during pendente lite proceedings that it wanted to see an increase in the plaintiff’s parenting time, and by indicating before it heard all the evidence at trial that it was inclined to award joint legal custody to the plaintiff.’ 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=798

AC38124 - State v. Azevedo (Arson in first degree; attempt to commit insurance fraud; attempt to commit larceny in first degree; conspiracy to commit arson in first degree; conspiracy to commit insurance fraud; conspiracy to commit larceny in first degree; "On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) out-of-court statements of a coconspirator that the trial court admitted into evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay and violated the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) that the state's use of cell site location information violated article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38832 - State v. Smith (Probation; "The defendant, Jacqui Smith, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years incarceration.The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the probation violation charge on the basis that the hearing did not occur within 120 days of his arraignment in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32 (c) and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had operated a motor vehicle while his driver's license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (a) and, therefore, he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. The state counters that, pursuant to State v. Kelley, 164 Conn. App. 232, 137 A.3d 822 (2016), aff'd, 326 Conn. 731, 167 A.3d 961 (2017), the 120 day time frame of § 53a-32 (c) is directory and, additionally, that the court properly found good cause for the delay. The state concedes, however, that there was insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the defendant had violated § 14-215 (a), and, therefore, under these facts and circumstances, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We conclude that the court properly determined that the 120 day time period of § 53a-32 (c) is a nonmandatory "guideline." Further, we agree that a new sentencing hearing is required. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=799

AC39095 - Salmon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish the ineffectiveness of his pretrial counsel. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with the petitioner, and conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We further conclude that the habeas court made a clearly erroneous factual finding that underlies its determination that pretrial counsel did not render deficient performance. We also deter- mine that the habeas court did not make a determination regarding whether any assumed deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for a new trial.")


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=801

AC39274 - Wiederman v. Halpert (Breach of fiduciary duty; "In this action arising from a real estate investment agreement, the defendants Isaac Halpert and Marsha Halpert appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open the judgment rendered against them following a hearing in damages held after they had been defaulted for failing to appear at a trial management conference. The trial court held a hearing in damages and awarded the plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, $600,892.58 in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, on her claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion and bad faith. The defendants claim on appeal that (1) the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims because the plaintiff did not have standing to assert them; (2) the trial court failed to make a determination as to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion and bad faith; (3) there was no causal connection between the defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct and the losses for which the court awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages; (4) the trial court erred in finding Marsha Halpert liable for fraud and conversion absent sufficient allegations of those claims against her; and (5) the court erred in awarding the plaintiff punitive damages in addition to attorney's fees on her claim of fraud. The defendants concede that they failed to raise any of the foregoing claims in their motion to open the judgment, and thus that the law ordinarily precludes this court from considering those claims on appeal. The defendants nevertheless seek review of their claim that court erred in denying their motion to open on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert her claims against the defendants and thus that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the judgment contained plain errors that resulted in manifest injustice. We agree that the plaintiff failed to properly plead a claim for conversion against Marsha Halpert, and thus that the court's judgment finding her liable for conversion must be reversed. We also agree with the defendants' claim that the court committed plain error in awarding the plaintiff punitive damages in addition to attorney's fees on her claim of fraud, and thus we conclude that the award of punitive damages must be vacated.")


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=800

AC39191 - Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Scroggin ("The defendant, Daniel J. Scroggin also known as Daniel F. Scroggin also known as Daniel Scroggin, appeals from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered by the trial court in favor of the substitute plaintiff, AJX Mortgage Trust 1, a Delaware Trust, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, F.S.B., Trustee. The defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure because (1) the judgment was based upon a default for failure to plead in response to the original complaint, but the plaintiff's predecessor in this action, thereafter, had significantly amended the pleadings and added additional parties to the action, and (2) by operation of General Statutes § 52-121 (a), he was entitled to, and did, file an answer prior to the hearing on the plaintiff's motion for judgment. We agree with the defendant's first claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to that court for further proceedings.")


Law Library Hours Update: December 14th - December 29th

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=789

Friday December 15th

  • Rockville Law Library will close after 1:30 p.m.

Tuesday December 19th

  • Torrington Law Library will close at 1:00 p.m.

Wednesday December 20th

  • New London Law Library will close at 4:00 p.m.

Thursday December 21st

  • Danbury Law Library will close at 4:00 p.m.

Monday December 25th

  • All Judicial Branch Law Libraries will be closed.

Thursday December 26th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library will be closed.
  • New London Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library will be closed.

Wednesday December 27th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
  • Middletown Law Library will be closed.
  • New Britain Law Library will be closed.
  • New London Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • Stamford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.

Thursday December 28th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • Hartford Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library will be closed.

Friday December 29th

  • Danbury Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
  • New Britain Law Library will be open from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • New London Law Library will be closed.
  • Rockville Law Library will be closed.
  • Torrington Law Library opens at 9:30 a.m.



Juvenile Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=797

SC19907 - In re Henrry P. B. - P. ("In this certified appeal, we consider whether the Probate Court retains the statutory authority to make findings pursuant to General Statutes § 45a-608n (b) in connection with a petition for special immigrant juvenile status (juvenile status) under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (27) (J), when the minor child who is the subject of the petition reaches the age of eighteen years old during the pendency of the petition. The petitioner, Reyna P. A., and her son, Henrry P. B.-P., appeal, upon our grant of their petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgments of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters dismissing their appeals from the decisions of the Probate Court. In re Henrry P. B.-P., 171 Conn. App. 393, 415, 156 A.3d 673 (2017). We agree with their dispositive claim in this appeal, and conclude that the Probate Court did not lose its authority to make juvenile status findings pursuant to § 45a-608n (b) when Henrry turned eighteen years old during the pendency of the petition. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=795

SC19690,SC19692 - State v. Adams (Breach of peace second degree; attempted larceny sixth degree; certification from Appellate Court; "The issues that we must resolve in these certified appeals by the defendant, Lorenzo Adams, and the state are whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that (1) the defendant’s conviction of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 was supported by the evidence, and (2) the defendant’s conviction of attempted larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-49 and General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-125b was not supported by the evidence. The defendant was charged with a variety of offenses after he attempted to steal merchandise from a Marshalls department store in Danbury and engaged in a scuffle with the store’s security personnel. After a trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree and attempted larceny in the sixth degree, and the court rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the conviction of breach of the peace and, in a split decision, reversed the conviction of attempted larceny. See State v. Adams, 163 Conn. App. 810, 825, 137 A.3d 108 (2016). We then granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal to this court on the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for breach of the peace?' State v. Adams, 321 Conn. 913, 136 A.3d 1273 (2016). We also granted the state’s petition for certification to appeal on the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court majority correctly determine that there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment against the defendant of attempted larceny in the sixth degree?' State v. Adams, 321 Conn. 912, 138 A.3d 281 (2016). We dismiss the defendant’s appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted, and we reverse in part the Appellate Court’s judgment with respect to its determination that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of attempted larceny in the sixth degree.")


Connecticut Law Journal - December 12, 2017

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=794

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 24, for December 12, 2017 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 327: Connecticut Reports (Pages 212 - 225)
  • Volume 327: Orders (Pages 973 - 975)
  • Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 178: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 490 - 670)
  • Volume 178: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notices
  • Supreme Court Pending Cases
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies


Insurance Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=793

SC19618 - Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak ("This declaratory judgment action concerns whether an insurer is obligated to indemnify a business owner under a personal insurance policy for liability arising from his false imprisonment of his company’s employee at her workplace and the evidentiary basis on which such a determination is to be made. In this certified appeal, the defendant Jeffrey S. Pasiak challenges the Appellate Court’s determination that such liability fell under the business pursuits exclusion to coverage under his personal umbrella policy. The plaintiffs, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, contend that coverage not only is barred under the business pursuits exclusion, but also that (1) coverage is barred under policy exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and for mental abuse, (2) construing the policy to provide indemnification for common-law punitive damages arising from intentional wrongdoing violates public policy, and (3) the trial court improperly limited the scope of discovery and the declaratory judgment trial, depriving the plaintiffs of a trial de novo on coverage issues that they could not litigate in the underlying tort action.

We hold that the case must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, limited to the issue of whether the business pursuits exclusion applies. We conclude that neither the Appellate Court nor the trial court employed the correct standard for determining whether the defendant’s tortious conduct was an occurrence 'arising out of' the business pursuits of the insured and that further factual findings would be necessary to determine whether this exception applies under the correct standard. We further conclude that the plaintiffs cannot prevail on their alternative grounds regarding the other exclusions and public policy as a matter of law. Finally, we conclude that the plaintiffs are not limited to the evidentiary record in the underlying tort action to establish that the business pursuits exclusion barred coverage. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with direction to remand the case to the trial court for a trial de novo on that issue.")

  • SC19618 Concurrence & Dissent - Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak


Probate Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=792

AC39446 - Geci v. Boor ("In this consolidated probate appeal, the defendant David Boor appeals from the judgments rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Alice K. Geci. The defendant claims that (1) the court erred by finding that, upon the death of the decedent, William F. Klee, the plaintiff became the sole owner of joint bank accounts held by the decedent and the plaintiff, and, thus, they were not part of his estate, and (2) the court abused its discretion by reinstating the plaintiff as the executrix of the decedent’s estate. We disagree with the defendant and, therefore, 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=788

AC39851 - State v. Garcia (Writ of error; bail; "In this writ of error, the plaintiff in error, Afford-A-Bail, Inc. (Afford), claims that the trial court improperly denied its motion to discharge its obligation on a surety bail bond. Afford claims that the court, in denying its motion, improperly concluded that: (1) the standard for demonstrating "good cause" for discharge of an obligation upon a surety bail bond pursuant to Practice Book § 38-23 is the standard first set forth in Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366, 369–70, 21 L. Ed. 287 (1872), rather than a more holistic, equitable assessment; and (2) the failure of the defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, to extradite the criminal defendant, Jay Garcia, after representing that it would do so, was not relevant to the court's good cause determination. The state argues that the requirement of good cause for discharge of the obligation upon the surety bond pursuant to General Statutes § 54-65c and aspects of the common-law rule in Taylor as explicated in State v. Sheriff, 301 Conn. 617, 21 A.3d 808 (2011), were not satisfied. We conclude that the trial court properly denied Afford's motion to discharge its obligation on the surety bond and, therefore, we dismiss the writ of error.")

AC38166 - State v. Fuller (Conspiracy to steal firearm; conspiracy to commit larceny in fourth degree; conspiracy to commit burglary in third degree; illegal manufacture, distribution, sale, prescription or administration of narcotics by person who is not drug-dependent; illegal manufacture, distribution, sale, prescription or administration of narcotics by person who is not drug-dependent within 1500 feet of public elementary school; conspiracy to commit illegal manufacture, distribution, sale, prescription or administration of narcotics by person who is not drug-dependent; criminal possession of firearm; "The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court, in denying his requests to personally possess a copy of the discovery items disclosed by the state pursuant to Practice Book §§ 40-10 and 40-13A: (1) violated his federal and state constitutional rights to counsel, a fair trial and due process; (2) abused its discretion; and (3) committed structural error. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37859 - State v. Johnson (Robbery in second degree; conspiracy to commit robbery in second degree; sufficiency of evidence; plain error doctrine; "The defendant, Anthony Johnson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-135 (a) (1) (B), and conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-135. On appeal, the defendant claims that the jury found him guilty on the basis of uncorroborated accomplice testimony, which, as a matter of law, is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. In making this argument, the defendant acknowledges that Supreme Court precedent must be overturned for him to be able to prevail on this claim. The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly failed to caution the jury regarding the dangers of uncorroborated accomplice testimony and improperly admitted a witness' prior inconsistent statement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Employment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=791

AC39132 - Horvath v. Hartford ("The plaintiff, John K. Horvath, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the city of Hartford. On appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the trial court’s judgment was in error because disputed issues of material fact exist concerning whether he was retaliated against, and later constructively discharged, by the defendant in violation of General Statutes § 31-51m as a result of his whistleblowing activities while in the defendant’s employ. In response, the defendant claims that summary judgment was appropriate because, in opposition to its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff offered no evidence that the defendant constructively discharged him by intentionally creating an intolerable work environment compelling him to resign. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=787

AC39496 - Lawrence v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection (Administrative appeal; "The plaintiff, Robert H. Lawrence, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his administrative appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner) granting the application of 16 Highgate Road, LLC (Highgate), to construct a residential dock and pier.The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) he was not classically aggrieved by the commissioner's decision, (2) he was statutorily aggrieved under General Statutes § 22a-19 only with respect to his claim of visual degradation, (3) the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record and (4) the commissioner's decision complied with all applicable laws and regulations. We affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.")

  • Appendix - Lawrence v. Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Mazur, Catherine

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=786

AC39097 - Cuozzo v. Orange (Personal injury; "In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, Armand Cuozzo, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, the town of Orange (town) and the city of West Haven (city). The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment because (1) there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the location of the pothole at issue and (2) the acts performed by the defendants were not discretionary in nature. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the location of the pothole, we need not reach the plaintiff's second claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC39279 - Cusano v. Lajoie (Negligence; "The defendants, Edward Lajoie and Kathleen Weaver, appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff, Christopher Cusano, for additur in the amount of $2000. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion for additur. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39284 - Tara S. v. Charles J. (Sexual assault; "The defendant, Charles J., appeals from the trial court's judgment (1) denying his motion to dismiss the application for a prejudgment remedy filed by the plaintiff, Tara S., and the underlying action, and (2) granting a prejudgment attachment of $150,000 in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss because, as applied to him, General Statutes § 52-577d is unconstitutional in that the plaintiff did not repress memories of the sexual assault and, therefore, knew of her potential claim against him for more than thirty years. The defendant also argues that § 52-577d violates his right to a speedy trial, his protection against double jeopardy, and his right to confrontation provided by both the United States and Connecticut constitutions. Finally, the defendant argues that § 52-577d is unconstitutionally overbroad and improperly deprives him of a property interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=790

AC39328 - Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that (1) his state and federal constitutional due process rights were not violated by the state’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence concerning agreements or understandings that it allegedly had with two of its witnesses, (2) the state did not violate his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by knowingly presenting, and failing to correct, the false testimony from those witnesses, and (3) he was not denied his state and federal constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly cross-examine those witnesses regarding their alleged agreements or understandings with the state. Because we conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that the agreements or understandings were not disclosed, we are unpersuaded by the petitioner’s first and second claims. We are also unpersuaded by the petitioner’s third claim because, even if it is assumed that his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation, the petitioner failed to prove that he was prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC39566- Weaving v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner contends that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and by rejecting his claims that counsel at both his criminal trial and his first habeas proceeding rendered ineffective assistance. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, thus, dismiss the appeal.")



Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=783

SC19711 - State v. James E. (Risk of injury to child; certification from Appellate Court; "The primary issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether the state presented sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant, James E., was guilty of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), when he retrieved and discharged a firearm during a chaotic altercation with another man in the vicinity of his three year old child. The defendant appealed from the judgment rendered in accordance with the jury's guilty verdict to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court because, inter alia, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction of risk of injury to a child based on an uncharged mental health theory of liability. See State v. James E., 154 Conn. App. 795, 798, 112 A.3d 791 (2015). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, and, on appeal, the state presented an alternative ground for affirmance: "There was sufficient evidence to prove [that] the defendant [was] guilty of risk of injury to a [child] because the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted a three year old child to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of that child was endangered." The defendant opposes this alternative ground, claiming that the state also lacked sufficient evidence to support his conviction under that theory. We agree with the state on the alternative ground presented and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")