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.

Juvenile Law Appellate Court Slip Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5115

AC45026 - In re Katia V. (Termination of parental rights; Claim of violation of mother’s rights under ADA; "The respondent mother, Karen V., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor daughter, Katia V. (Katia). On appeal, the respondent claims that (1) the Department of Children and Families (department) and the court violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2018), (2) the court erred by denying her motion to bifurcate the adjudicatory and dispositional portions of the termination proceedings, and (3) the court erred by denying her motion to sequester certain witnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


New Office of Legislative Research Reports

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5114

The Connecticut General Assembly's Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has recently published the following reports related to criminal law:

Disclosure of Body Camera Recordings - 2022-R-0164 - Describes state law’s requirements for disclosing law enforcement body camera recordings.

Reimbursement of Incarceration Costs in Connecticut - 2022-R-0149 - Summarizes the law requiring incarcerated individuals to pay the cost of their incarceration. (This report updates OLR Report 2018-R-0269.)

Isolated Confinement - 2022-R-0169 - Summarizes Connecticut’s law on using isolated confinement on an incarcerated individual.

Animal Cruelty Cases in Connecticut (2011-2021) - 2022-R-0123 - Summarizes Connecticut’s primary animal cruelty statute (CGS § 53-247) and the outcome of cases brought under it from 2011 through 2021. (This report updates OLR Report 2019-R-0154.)

Acts Affecting Criminal Justice and Public Safety - 2022-R-0096 - This report provides summaries of new laws (public acts and special acts) significantly affecting crime and public safety enacted during the 2022 regular session and June special session (JSS).

Table on Penalties - 2022-R-0143 - "When sentencing an offender to prison, the judge must specify a period of incarceration. The prison terms in Table 1 . . . represent the range within which a judge must set the sentence."


Connecticut Law Journal - August 16, 2022

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5113

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 7, for August 16, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 302 - 404)
  • Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 214: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 455 - 468)
  • Volume 214: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Assignment of Judges
  • Miscellaneous Notices


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5112

SC20536 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (“The primary issue on appeal is whether the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal with respect to the claim that his defense counsel at his second criminal trial rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by laboring under a conflict of interest, namely, simultaneously working as defense counsel and as an active duty police officer in a different city. Although counsel’s failure to disclose the potential conflict to the petitioner is deeply troubling, and although we conclude that the legal issues raised are fairly debatable among jurists of reason, such that certification to appeal should have been granted, we ultimately agree with the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, that the petitioner failed to prove his claim that his counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest.”)


Law Library Hours - 8/11/22 - 8/19/22

   by Dowd, Jeffrey

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5109


Monday, August 15th

  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Tuesday, August 16th

  • New London Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Wednesday, August 17th

  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Thursday, August 18th

  • New Britain Law Library closes at 4:15 p.m.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.

Friday, August 19th

  • Danbury Law Library is closed.
  • New Britain Law Library is closed.
  • Putnam Law Library is closed.
  • Torrington Law Library is closed.


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5111

SC20469 - State v. Rogers (“On appeal, he claims that, in light of this court’s recent decision in State v. Jackson, 334 Conn. 793, 224 A.3d 886 (2020), in which his codefendant, Raashon Jackson, was granted a new trial premised on his properly preserved objection to the state’s untimely disclosure of an expert witness, this court should exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse his conviction, even though he did not join in Jackson’s objection to the untimely disclosed expert, because they were tried jointly and suffered the same harm. Additionally, he requests that this court overrule our recent decision in State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660, 686–87, 224 A.3d 129 (2020), and review the merits of his unpreserved Porter1 claim under State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017). We affirm the judgment of conviction.")


Landlord/Tenant Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5110

AC44860 - Maye v. Canady ("The self-represented defendant, Devonne Canady, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the self-represented plaintiff, Solomon Maye, on his claim of entry and detainer. On appeal, we discern the defendant's claims to be that the trial court erred in finding that (1) there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and (2) the plaintiff's damages resulting from the defendant's entry and detainer amount to $10,286.63. We conclude that the record is inadequate for our review as to the defendant's first claim, and, therefore, we decline to review it. As to the defendant's second claim, we conclude that the court improperly awarded a portion of the plaintiff's damages concerning moving expenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to the award of damages.")


Administrative Appeal Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5108

SC20570 - Vogue v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (Unemployment Compensation; Whether defendant correctly determined that plaintiff was liable for unpaid unemployment compensation contributions because on-premises tattoo artist was employee under General Statutes § 31-222 (a) (1); "This certified appeal requires us to consider whether the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division (board) correctly determined that tattoo services are part of the usual course of business of a body art and piercing business for purposes of part B of the statutory ABC test; see General Statutes § 31-222 (a) (1) (B) (ii) (II); which is used to determine whether an individual is an employee for purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Act (act), § 31-222 et seq. The plaintiff, Vogue, which is a business that provides body piercing and body art services, appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, the Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act, that dismissed its appeal from the decision of the board. Vogue v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 202 Conn. App. 291, 314, 245 A.3d 464 (2021). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's determination that the board had not acted unreasonably or arbitrarily in holding the plaintiff liable for unpaid unemployment compensation contributions on the basis of its conclusion that the offering of tattoo services was within the plaintiff's usual course of business. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")



Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5107

SC20552 - State v. Qayyum (“On appeal, the defendant asserts that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the trial court improperly admitted (1) expert testimony regarding the defendant’s intent to sell narcotics, and (2) evidence that the defendant had no reportable wages on record with the Connecticut Department of Labor (department) in 2016 and 2017. We reject both of these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Connecticut Law Journal - August 9, 2022

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5106

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 6, for August 9, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 200 - 302)
  • Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 214: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 332 - 454)
  • Volume 214: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Miscellaneous Notice


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5105

SC20349 - State v. Patterson (“The defendant, Harold Patterson, directly appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. He claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct, namely, two prior shootings involving the alleged murder weapon, to prove identity and means. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the uncharged misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.”)


Foreclosure Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5101

AC43121 - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis ("In this mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Johanna Francis appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, CIT Bank, N.A. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly granted the plaintiff’s motion for a protective order regarding certain discovery requests, thereby preventing her from pursuing her special defenses. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

  • AC43121 Concurrence - CIT Bank, N.A. v. Francis


Tort Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5103

AC44436 - Brass Mill Center, LLC v. Subway Real Estate Corp. ("The defendant AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Brass Mill Center, LLC, granting summary judgment as to liability and awarding damages. The defendant argues that the trial court improperly concluded that it had a contractual duty (1) to defend the plaintiff in an underlying wrongful death action brought against the plaintiff and (2) to indemnify the plaintiff in that same wrongful death action, including for attorney’s fees and costs that the plaintiff incurred in pursuing claims against third parties. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5099

SC20600 - State v. Smith (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his cell phone and evidence obtained from T-Mobile, his cell phone service provider, because the warrants authorizing those searches were not supported by probable cause and lacked sufficient particularity to comport with the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. The state disagrees with each of these claims and asserts, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the defendant that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the information obtained from the execution of both warrants. We further conclude, however, that this error was harmless with respect to some, but not all, of the crimes alleged. As a result, we affirm in part and reverse in part.”)

SC20488 - State v. Bowden (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence from a search of his cell phone violated his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution because (1) the application for the warrant authorizing that search lacked a particular description of the things to be seized, and (2) the affidavit supporting that application failed to establish probable cause. The state disagrees with each of these claims and asserts, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state that any error in the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence obtained from the search warrant was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5100

AC43327 - Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) the habeas court erred in determining that the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay and (2) the habeas judge improperly failed to disqualify himself. We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)


Legal Malpractice Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5102

AC44320 - Gianetti v. Neigher (This appeal arises out of a legal malpractice action brought by the plaintiff, Charles D. Gianetti, against the defendant, Alan Neigher, an attorney who represented the plaintiff in a prior civil action (prior action) against Norwalk Hospital (hospital). The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness, Attorney Bruce H. Stanger, because (1) the sanction of precluding the testimony was not proportional to the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the expert disclosure requirements set forth in Practice Book § 13-4, which the plaintiff contends could have been adequately remedied by a less severe sanction, and (2) in so sanctioning the plaintiff, the court improperly determined that the expert’s opinion was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. The plaintiff additionally claims that the court improperly rendered summary judgment because (1) the court failed to consider the testimony of his expert witness, and (2) even if the court properly precluded the testimony of his expert witness, a genuine issue of material fact nonetheless existed as to the legal malpractice elements of causation and damages. We affirm the judgment of the court.)


Criminal Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5098

SC20299 - State v. Samuolis (“The sole issue is whether the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his home, specifically, the dead body of the defendant’s father, John Samuolis, on the grounds that (1) the police officers’ warrantless entry into the Samuolis home was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, or, alternatively, (2) the defendant’s alleged actions in shooting at the officers upon their initial entry attenuated the taint from that unlawful initial entry and justified their subsequent reentries into the home. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on the basis of the first ground.”)


Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5096

SC20594 - Wind Colebrook South, LLC v. Colebrook ("Municipal property tax appeal; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether wind turbines used for the generation of electricity, and their associated equipment, are properly classified for purposes of taxation as real property pursuant to General Statutes § 12-64 (a) or, instead, as personal property pursuant to General Statutes § 12-41 (c). The plaintiff, Wind Colebrook South, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered primarily in favor of the defendant, the town of Colebrook, in this municipal property tax appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-117a and 12-119. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly upheld the defendant's (1) classification of its two wind turbines and their associated equipment as real property pursuant to § 12-64 (a), (2) overvaluation and overassessment of its property, and (3) double assessment of the plaintiff's declared personal property. Although we conclude that the wind turbines were properly classified as real property, we agree with the plaintiff's claim that their associated equipment should have been classified as personal, rather than real, property. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

SC20594 Concurrence - Wind Colebrook South, LLC v. Colebrook


Connecticut Law Journal - August 2, 2022

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5097

The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXXIV, No. 5, for August 2, 2022 is now available.

Contained in the issue is the following:

  • Table of Contents
  • Volume 344: Connecticut Reports (Pages 150 - 200)
  • Volume 344: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
  • Volume 214: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 132 - 331)
  • Volume 214: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
  • Notices of Connecticut State Agencies