AC46598 - State v. Miller (“The defendant, Jesse Lee Miller, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (1), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied his motion to suppress, (2) the court erroneously admitted certain expert testimony, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC45710 - State ex rel. Dunn v. Burton (“On appeal, the defendant raises a number of claims, which we distill to the following: (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over the verified petition filed by Jeremiah Dunn, the chief animal control officer of the plaintiff, to vest temporary custody of the goats with the department, (2) the court improperly denied her motion to suppress, which attacked the process by which the warrant to search her property and seize the goats was issued pursuant to General Statutes (Supp. 2022) § 22-329a (b), (3) she was ‘‘denied due process when she was not allowed to present [her] motion to suppress for adjudication,’’ (4) she was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to the seizure of her goats pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-341, (5) the court improperly determined that the goats were subjected to neglect and cruel treatment, (6) the court improperly determined that the defendant failed to comply with its order to relinquish ownership of the goats by April 16, 2021, or pay a surety or cash bond in the amount of $32,000 by that date, (7) § 22-329a is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case, and (8) the court improperly dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim on the ground that the claims raised in the counterclaim were barred by either sovereign immunity or the prior pending action doctrine. We affirm the judgments of the court.”)

AC46414 - State v. Pringle (Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence; assault 1^st degree, promoting prostitution 2^nd degree; possession of narcotics with intent to sell; sale of narcotics; tampering with witness; Alford Doctrine; “On appeal, he makes several arguments supporting his claim that the court improperly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We dismiss the appeal as moot.”)

AC46657 - State v. Bryan (Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence; persistent dangerous felony offender; “The defendant first claims that the court erred in denying his motion because his guilty plea to being a persistent dangerous felony offender pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-402 was defective or, in the alternative, that the court should have dismissed his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than denying it on the merits. Second, the defendant claims, for the first time on appeal, that the sentencing court improperly failed to specify which portion of his sentence was attributable to the enhancement imposed pursuant to § 53a-40. With respect to the first claim, we conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s claim and, accordingly, that the court should have dismissed the motion to correct. We further conclude that the defendant is not entitled to review of his unpreserved second claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with direction to dismiss the defendant’s motion to correct.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC45999 - State v. Devin M. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his right to due process under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, when it denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the charges against him, in which he alleged that the police improperly failed to preserve and to collect certain evidence relating to clothing recovered from the laundry hamper (hamper) in the victim’s bedroom, and (2) abused its discretion by failing to conduct additional inquiry into an allegation of juror misconduct. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

AC46751, AC46758 - State v. Lee and State v. Labrec (“These two appeals, although not consolidated, involve an identical issue, namely, whether the unreasonable delay in the execution of a rearrest warrant for failure to appear, which led to the dismissal of the failure to appear charge on statute of limitations grounds, also warranted, on statute of limitations grounds, the dismissal of the otherwise timely filed underlying charges. In Docket No. AC 46751, the state appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the charges brought against the defendant Timothy A. Lee. In Docket No. AC 46758, the state appeals from the judgment of the court dismissing the charges brought against the defendant Clifton Labrec. In both appeals, the state asserts that, in connection with dismissing the defendants’ respective failure to appear charges on statute of limitations grounds, which the state does not challenge, the court improperly applied statute of limitations principles in dismissing the underlying timely filed charges brought against each defendant We agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court insofar as the court dismissed the defendants’ respective underlying charges.”)

AC45351 - State v. Abramovich (“On appeal, the defendant asks this court to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds that (1) he was not competent to plead guilty; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his competence and to request a competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d; (3) he was under duress at the time of his pleas; (4) the court breached the plea agreement; (5) the court failed to substantially comply with Practice Book § 39-19 when it accepted the pleas; (6) the court lacked a factual basis for the pleas; and (7) the court relied on materially false information at sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

AC46567 - State v. Godbout (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) General Statutes § 54-94a is unconstitutional; (2) Practice Book § 39-18 is unconstitutional; (3) the charges against him lacked probable cause; (4) the court erred in not complying with the requirements of Practice Book § 39-18; (5) the court violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing on his postjudgment motions; (6) the judges who presided over his case acted without authority; and (7) the court exceeded its authority by imposing terms to his conditional discharge. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46750 - State v. Reyes (Motion for sentence modification; arson second degree; conspiracy to commit criminal mischief first degree; conspiracy to commit burglary first degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in finding that he had failed to establish good cause to modify his total effective sentence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC47303 - State v. Sinchak (Motion to correct illegal sentence; subject matter jurisdiction; denial of state’s motion for permission to appeal because defendant had not yet been resentenced; “The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal because it is not from a final judgment. The state claims that the orders are immediately appealable. We disagree with the state and, therefore, we have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46030 - State v. Vickers (“The defendant, Kenyal Vickers, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (2), two counts of breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (2), and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) improperly denied his motion for severance of the charges as to two separate victims, and (2) committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the proper use of the evidence following the denial of his motion for severance. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC45493 - State v. Greene-Pendergrass (Violation of probation; “The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the probation of the defendant, Marque Greene-Pendergrass, and sentencing him to five years of incarceration. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

AC46775 - State v. Maurice B. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial impropriety and deprived him of a fair trial when the prosecutor made certain improper statements during the state’s rebuttal closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46113 - State ex rel. Dunn v. Connelly (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly denied her motion in limine, which sought to exclude any evidence seized following a warrantless search of her property, on the basis of its determination that the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil proceedings, and (2) the animal welfare statute, General Statutes (Supp. 2022) § 22-329a2 (g) and (h), violates her right a civil jury trial under article first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

• SC20995 - In re Criminal Complaint & Application for Arrest Warrant (“The plaintiffs in error, Diahann Phillips, Alison Scofield, and Albert Bottone, filed this writ of error challenging the decision by the Honorable Thomas J. Welch, declining to issue arrest warrants under General Statutes § 9-368 for two individuals who allegedly violated election laws. The defendant in error, the state of Connecticut, contends that we should dismiss this writ of error because the plaintiffs in error are neither classically nor statutorily aggrieved by the denial of their arrest warrant applications. Although we disagree with the defendant in error that the plaintiffs in error are required to establish statutory aggrievement to bring a writ of error, we dismiss the writ on the ground that the plaintiffs in error are not classically aggrieved.”)
  
  
  • Concurrence

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46053 - State v. Daniels - (“The defendant, Patricia Daniels, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1) (intentional manslaughter). The defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and (2) the court committed instructional error in its jury instruction concerning the essential element of intent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46008 - State v. Giannone (Sale of an assault weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53-202b (a) (1); possession of a silencer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-211; possession of a large capacity magazine in violation of General Statutes § 53-202w (c); “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the charges against him and his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police because the statutes under which he was convicted violate his right to bear arms under the second amendment to the United States constitution. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022), which was issued after the trial court denied the defendant’s motions but prior to his sentencing, we conclude that the judgments of the trial court must be reversed and the cases remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motions. In addition, we provide guidance to the trial court regarding how it should analyze the claims raised in the defendant’s motions under Bruen.”)

AC46501 - State v. Shane K. (Assault in the third degree; two counts of criminal violation of a protective; motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the case for improper venue, asserting that the court incorrectly (a) concluded that the state constitution does not require a criminal defendant to be tried in the judicial district where the charged offense occurred and (b) applied General Statutes § 51-352c (a) and (b), and (2) failed to instruct the jury on venue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46385 - State v. Randolph (Violation of probation; revoking probation; “The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his counsel’s motion to withdraw her appearance and (2) failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his competency to stand trial and, consequently, erred in denying his motion for a competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46382 - State v. Dayvid J. (Strangulation in the second degree; disorderly conduct; writ of error coram nobis; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition and, therefore, erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46513 - State v. Barnes (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion because he had been released on special parole and, therefore, was no longer serving ‘an executed period of incarceration’ as prescribed by § 53a-39 (a). We conclude that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s motion but correctly concluded that the defendant was not entitled to relief under § 53a-39 (a) because he was no longer serving an ‘executed period of incarceration.’ The form of the judgment is improper, as the court should have denied rather than dismissed the motion. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant’s motion for modification and remand the case with direction to deny that motion.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC46215 - State v. Bolden (Evading responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle; tampering with physical evidence; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) with regard to the tampering charge, the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed that a criminal investigation was about to be instituted and that he had concealed a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in such investigation, and (2) the court’s refusal to answer the jury’s questions during its deliberations resulted in an improper enlargement of the charged crimes. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46111 - State v. Tahir L. (Sexual assault in the fourth degree; risk of injury to a child; “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) his right to due process was violated by the trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury, (2) his right to due process was violated by the court’s final instructions to the jury, (3) the court erred in admitting certain evidence, and (4) the state committed prosecutorial impropriety. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC 20750 - State v. Mebane (Conviction of felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; “Following a jury trial, the defendant, Lonnie Mebane, was convicted of murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, Eric Diaz. In this direct appeal, the defendant raises the following claims: (1) the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial by asking three witnesses questions that favored the state and prejudiced the defendant, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and the defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime. We affirm the judgment.”)

• Dissent

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20725 - State v. Daren Y. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of sexual assault in the first degree or the vacated conviction of sexual assault in the fourth degree arising out of conduct involving J, (2) the trial court erred in failing to obtain the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights under the statute of limitations as to the first degree sexual assault and risk of injury charges arising out of conduct involving B, (3) the trial court erred in admitting certain sexual misconduct evidence because the prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed any probative value, and the court failed to provide the necessary limiting instruction when admitting such evidence, and (4) the trial court erred in declining to release D’s psychiatric records and declining to conduct an in camera inspection of B’s and J’s psychiatric records.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20812 - State v. Williams (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense because the trial court precluded his expert witness from testifying about surveillance footage, and (3) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony relating to particles consistent with gunshot residue. We conclude that the defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. We further conclude, however, that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in precluding the defendant’s proffered expert. Because we cannot conclude that this error was harmless, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Finally, we address the defendant’s claim relating to gunshot residue because the issue is likely to arise on remand and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting that evidence.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC45621 - State v. Anthony V. (Manslaughter first degree with firearm; plain error doctrine; claim of insufficient evidence; “The defendant claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the court’s failure to instruct the jury on general intent constituted plain error. Although we disagree with the defendant’s claim of evidentiary insufficiency, we agree with his claim of instructional error under the plain error doctrine. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20632 - State v. King (Waiver of jury trial; three judge panel; The defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment of conviction, (2) the failure of the trial court, Russo, J., to explain that the three judge panel did not have to reach a unanimous decision rendered her jury trial waiver involuntary and, thus, unconstitutional, and (3) three judge panels should be prohibited from deliberating until the close of evidence and the submission of the case to the panel, which, the defendant claims, improperly occurred in the present case. Although we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the majority’s guilty verdict, we invoke our supervisory authority over the administration of justice and hold that trial courts must canvass defendants who choose to be tried before a three judge panel, rather than before a jury, to ensure that they understand that, although a jury of their peers must be unanimous in reaching a guilty verdict, a three judge panel can properly arrive at a guilty verdict after a decision by a majority vote. The failure of the canvassing court in the present case to explain that critical difference to the defendant requires that we reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Finally, because the issue may arise at a retrial, we also hold that a three judge panel is not constitutionally prohibited from beginning its deliberations prior to the close of evidence and the submission of the case to the panel because, although judges are not immune from the frailties of human nature, they are held to a higher standard and serve a different role as compared with jurors.)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20729 - State v. Outlaw (Conviction of murder, criminal possession of a firearm; carrying a pistol without a permit; “The defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to question or dismiss a juror who appeared to be sleeping during a portion of the first day of evidence, (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence related to witness protection, (3) the trial court improperly allowed a witness to testify that she had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder, and (4) the prosecutor improperly commented in closing argument on the defendant’s right to a jury trial. We disagree with these claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Concurrence
• Concurrence & Dissent

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC45801 - State v. Roberts (Reckless endangerment second degree; threatening second degree; breach of peace second degree; intimidation based on bigotry or bias third degree; harassment second degree; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that it had conducted an adequate plea canvass; (2) (a) failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and (b) concluded that his guilty plea was not the result of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) concluded that General Statutes (Rev. to 2019) § 53a-181l 2 is not facially unconstitutional. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC46058 - State v. Purvis (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, and (2) if his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell is upheld, then his conviction of both possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell and possession of a controlled substance violates his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. We agree with the defendant as to his second claim and, accordingly, affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions