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


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.")