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.
SC20983 - State v. Wade (“In this certified appeal, the defendant, Jaquan Wade, appeals from the Appellate Court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s revocation of his probation and imposition of a thirteen year term of incarceration. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that, at his probation revocation hearing, he had abandoned his argument that the trial court should engage in a due process balancing under State v. Crespo, 190 Conn. App. 639, 646–48, 211 A.3d 1027 (2019), before admitting into evidence a witness’ out-of-court identification when that witness was not present and available for cross-examination. We agree and reverse the Appellate Court’s judgment.”)
AC45916 - State v. Abdulaziz (Health insurance fraud; “The defendant claims that his
conviction of health insurance fraud cannot be reconciled with his simultaneous
acquittal, based upon the same alleged underlying conduct, of larceny in the
first degree by defrauding a public community in violation of General Statutes
(Rev. to 2017) § 53a-122 (a) (4). Specifically, he argues that the court had
acquitted him of larceny in the first degree based upon the state’s failure to
prove the ‘obtaining’ and ‘value’ elements of that offense beyond a reasonable
doubt and, thus, that it should also have acquitted him of health insurance
fraud, which he claims required proof of those same elements to convict him in
this case. He further argues that the court later compounded its initial error
by reversing his ‘acquittal on the “value” element of larceny in the first
degree when it ruled on the state’s [posttrial] motion to correct an illegal
sentence.’ On that basis, he claims on appeal that the court (1) violated the
prohibition against successive prosecutions under the fifth and fourteenth
amendments to the United States constitution by reversing his acquittal on the
value element of the larceny charge, and (2) violated his constitutional right
to due process by convicting him of health insurance fraud ‘without finding
every fact necessary to constitute the crime.’ We reject the defendant’s claims
and affirm his challenged conviction of health insurance fraud.”)
AC47093 - State v. Toste (Murder; sentence modification; “The defendant, William
Toste, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his application for
a sentence modification pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-39. On appeal, the
defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in finding that he had
failed to establish good cause to modify his sentence. We disagree and affirm
the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46412 - State v. Edwin B. (“The defendant, Edwin B., appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree
in violation of General Statutes § 53a-56 (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child
in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). He claims that the court’s
failure to give specific unanimity instructions as to counts one and two violated
his right to jury unanimity under the sixth amendment to the United States
constitution. We agree with the defendant that the court’s failure to give
specific unanimity instructions violated his right to jury unanimity.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.”)
SC20853 - State v. Petteway (“The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction,
rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes §
53a-54a and criminal violation of a standing criminal protective order in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-223a. He claims that he is entitled to a
new trial because the trial court violated his right to self-representation
under the federal and state constitutions. Because the defendant’s conduct
functioned as a forfeiture of his right to self-representation, we disagree and
affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46582 - State v. Joseph E. (“Following a conditional plea of nolo contendere, entered
pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a, the defendant, Joseph E., appeals from
the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of
General Statutes (Rev. to 2021) § 53a-217. The defendant entered his
conditional plea following the court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain
evidence seized from his home. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court
improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search warrant application
and affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the search of his home and
the seizure of his property therein. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46753 - State v. Marciano (Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol; motion to suppress; “On appeal, the state claims that no constitutional
violation occurred because, at all relevant times, the arresting officer was
acting in his community caretaking capacity. Alternatively, the state argues
that, even if the officer was not acting in his community caretaking capacity,
the defendant was not unlawfully seized because the officer’s conduct did not
constitute a show of authority sufficient to cause a reasonable person in the
defendant’s position to believe that he was not free to leave. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.”)
SC20749 - State v. Dabate ("A jury found the defendant, Richard G. Dabate, guilty of, among other offenses, murdering his wife in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a in connection with a staged invasion of their home in Ellington. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, claiming that he is entitled to a new trial for the following reasons: (1) multiple instances of prosecutorial impropriety deprived him of his right to a fair trial; (2) the prosecutorial impropriety was so deliberate and flagrant that this court should exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in admitting data obtained from the victim's Fitbit; and (4) the trial court should have suppressed a statement given to the police because it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Although we agree with the defendant that the prosecutor engaged in multiple acts of impropriety at trial that we consider troubling, we conclude that those improprieties did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. We also reject the defendant's other claims of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
AC46871 - State v. Thompson-Baker (Assault on judicial marshal; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was
insufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that, when he
assaulted a judicial marshal, the marshal was acting in the performance of his
official duties. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
SC20792 - State v. Marcello E. (“On appeal, the defendant asks us to reject the Appellate
Court’s conclusion that the prior misconduct evidence was admissible and
instead to conclude that it was not relevant to a material fact in the case,
and, even if it were relevant, that its probative value did not outweigh its
prejudicial effect. We agree with the defendant to the extent that the evidence
was unduly prejudicial and harmful and therefore reverse the judgment of the
Appellate Court and order a remand of the case for a new trial.”)
SC20840 - State v. Jones (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly admitted into evidence testimony related to the defendant’s alleged gang affiliation, and (2) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the defendant’s actions after law enforcement attempted to arrest him in Louisiana to establish his consciousness of guilt. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC43796 - State v. Garrison (Assault in the first degree; motion to suppress; “The
remaining issues on appeal are whether the trial court improperly denied (1)
the defendant’s motion to suppress because, contrary to the determination of
the court, his statements to the police were not voluntary, and therefore their
admission at trial violated his right to due process, and (2) his motion for
sanctions in which he claimed that the state had failed to comply with the
court’s discovery orders and its constitutional obligation to disclose
impeachment evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83
S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We are not persuaded by these claims and
therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.”)
SC20849 - State v. Adam P. (Five counts of sexual assault in the first degree; four
counts of risk of injury to a child; four counts of risk of injury to a child; violation
of due process rights; “We conclude that we must overrule Daniel W. E.,
to the extent that it modified our constancy of accusation doctrine set forth
in State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 304–305, 677 A.2d 917 (1996), so that
jurors understand more precisely the parameters for when and how they may
consider a victim’s delayed reporting when assessing the victim’s credibility.
Further, we hold that the alleged instructional error was nonconstitutional in
nature and that, based on the charges against the defendant and the record in
its entirety, it was not reasonably probable that the trial court’s Daniel
W. E. instruction misled the jury in arriving at its verdict. Finally, we
reject the defendant’s second claim and conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by permitting D to testify that the defendant had told her
that he played the same sexual ‘games’ with A that he had with the victims. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.”)
AC47066 - Ramos v. State (“The self-represented plaintiff, Jose Ramos, who previously
had been convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and
sentenced to sixty years of imprisonment, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court dismissing his action against the defendant, the state of
Connecticut (state), in which he sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
punitive damages, and to have his conviction vacated and a new criminal trial.
On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) granted the state’s motion
to dismiss the action and (2) did so without oral argument on the motion. We
conclude that the plaintiff’s claims are inadequately briefed and, thus,
decline to review them. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court.”)
SC20801 - State v. Ziolkowski ("Following a trial, the jury found the defendant, Karin Ziolkowski, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) and arson in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (1) (B). For those crimes, the trial court sentenced the defendant to forty years of imprisonment. In this direct appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), the defendant asserts that (1) her amnesia during a twenty-four to thirty-six hour period around the time of the incident in question prevented her from receiving a fair trial, (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence several postings on a Twitter (now X) account, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to find her guilty of murder and of arson in the second degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
SC21008 - State v. Inzitari (One count of possessing child pornography in the first degree; fifty or more visual depictions of child pornography; artifacts of deleted images; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the court improperly instructed the jury that it could consider the so-called Dost factors in determining whether the images introduced by the state constituted a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, (3) the court erred in not giving a unanimity instruction, and (4) the court abused its discretion in admitting two of the state’s exhibits. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46442 - State v. Ardizzone (Discharge from the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security
Review Board. “On appeal, the acquittee claims that (1) the court improperly
found that, if he were discharged, he would present a danger to himself or
others and (2) § 17a-593 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. We
disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
AC46988 - State v. Marcu (Misconduct with a motor vehicle; “On appeal, the defendant
claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his conduct
was committed with the mens rea of criminal negligence, and (2) the finding
that he was criminally negligent was not supported by the trial court’s factual
findings. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)
SC20778 - State v. Johnson (“The jury rejected the defendant’s justification defenses
and found him guilty of the crimes of murder, assault in the first degree,
criminal use of a firearm, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a
pistol without a permit. In this direct appeal, the defendant contends that (1)
the evidence was insufficient to defeat his claims of self-defense and defense
of others with respect to Wooten, and (2) the trial court improperly excluded
evidence of Taylor’s violent character under § 4-4 (a) (2) of the Connecticut
Code of Evidence. We affirm the judgment.”)
AC46522 - State v. Artis (“On appeal, the defendant claims that, before he entered his plea on the manslaughter charge, the court was required, in accordance with Practice Book § 39- 19, to inform him that, by statute, an individual convicted of manslaughter in the first degree is disqualified from earning any risk reduction credits toward a reduction of his sentence but failed to do so. He avers that he ‘was not aware . . . when he pleaded guilty or at sentencing . . . that he was statutorily prohibited from being eligible to earn the good time credits because of the manslaughter charge’ and that, consequently, his ‘sentence is akin to being a mandatory minimum,’ and his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made. As a remedy for this, he requests that we ‘provide [him] with a right to earn good time credit on his manslaughter conviction’ in accordance with the trial court’s suggestion at his sentencing hearing that he ‘may accumulate good time credits,’ notwithstanding its inaccuracy.
------
It is the role of the General Assembly to legislate and the role of the judiciary to adjudicate. For this court to accede to the defendant’s request would amount to an invasion of the General Assembly’s domain in violation of principles of separation of powers among the various branches of government. This we will not do. Stated simply, this court cannot provide the defendant with the only relief he requests and, therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment on that basis.”)
AC47331 - State v. Nathaniel T. ("The self-represented defendant, Nathaniel T., who had been
convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child
for which he was sentenced to a period of incarceration, followed by a period
of special parole and a period of probation, appeals from the judgment of the
trial court denying his motion to modify the condition of his probation that he
comply with all sex offender registry requirements, namely, the requirement
that, upon being released from confinement, he register his name and address
with the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection and that such
registration be maintained for the duration of his life (lifetime sex offender
registration). The defendant claims that the court, Dayton, J., improperly
denied his motion to modify the lifetime sex offender registration requirement
of his probation. In addition, with respect to the underlying sentencing
proceedings, the defendant claims that the court, Rodriguez, J., improperly
denied him the opportunity to present certain mitigating evidence and imposed
an illegal and unconstitutional sentence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm
the judgment of the court.”)
SC20843 - State v. Orane C. (Three counts of sexual assault in the first degree; “The
Appellate Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, rejecting his claim that
count two of the state’s February 7, 2020 substitute information (2020
substitute information) was time barred by the five year statute of
limitations. On appeal, the defendant claims that count two of the 2020
substitute information, charging conduct from 2014, substantially broadened or
amended the charges that were timely brought, therefore rendering it time
barred under General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 54-193 (b). We agree with the
defendant and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)
SC20827 - State v. Hurdle (Robbery in the first degree; conspiracy to commit robbery
in the first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court
incorrectly concluded that (1) under subsection (c) of § 18-98d, the trial
court lacked authority to direct the commissioner to apply presentence
confinement credit, and (2) there was no basis for allowing the defendant to
withdraw his guilty pleas because the plea agreement did not include some of
the presentence confinement credit that the defendant had sought from the trial
court. We conclude that the trial court has the discretionary authority under §
18-98d to include on the mittimus an order directing the commissioner to award
presentence confinement credit in accordance with subsection (a) (1) of that
statute for specific dates when the defendant was confined because he was
unable to obtain bail or because bail was denied. We further conclude that the
Appellate Court correctly determined that the plea agreement did not include an
agreement that the defendant would receive presentence confinement credit for
the time he spent serving sentences in connection with different files, and,
for that reason, the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea.
Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)
SC20834 - State v. Eric L. (Violation of probation; presentence confinement credit;
companion case; “The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly
concluded that the trial court lacked authority under General Statutes §
18-98d2 to direct the commissioner of correction (commissioner) to apply
specific presentence confinement credit to his sentence. We agree and,
accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)
SC20848 - State v. Nixon (Motion to correct an illegal sentence for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court
incorrectly concluded that it lacked authority under General Statutes § 18-98d
to direct the commissioner of correction (commissioner) to apply a specific
number of presentence confinement credits to his sentence. We agree and,
accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)