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

SC20773- State v. Garrison (“The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether officers from the Vernon Police Department elicited incriminating statements from the defendant, Alexander A. Garrison, during a custodial interrogation in his hospital room without first administering Miranda warnings, in violation of his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. The state appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of conviction, rendered following a court trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). See State v. Garrison, 213 Conn. App. 786, 789–90, 841, 278 A.3d 1085 (2022). The state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that a new trial was required because the trial court should have suppressed the defendant’s statements on the ground that he was in custody when he spoke with the police officers in his hospital room without having received Miranda warnings. We conclude that the defendant was not in custody during any of his interactions with the police officers at the hospital and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

• Dissent

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

AC46093 - State v. Brelsford (Denial of motion for modification of sentence; “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, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC45685 - State v. Cruz (Assault in the first degree; criminal possession of a firearm; carrying a pistol without a permit; “On appeal, the defendant claims that the state made certain purported misrepresentations in moving to join his case with a codefendant’s case that resulted in an improper joinder of the cases and violated his constitutional rights to confrontation and to a fair trial pursuant to the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.”)

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

SC20779 - State v. Carter ("Following a jury trial, the defendant, Jacques Carter, was convicted of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a-100aa (a) (2) and burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (1) stemming from a break-in at a Danbury apartment in 2016. During the break-in, the defendant was armed with a Crosman Vigilante air gun that was loaded with pellets, but the gun had no carbon dioxide (CO2) cartridge installed, and the chamber where the CO2 cartridge would be installed was sealed off with duct tape. To obtain a conviction under either of the foregoing statutes, as charged in the information in this case, the state had to establish, among other things, that the defendant was "armed with . . . a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument." On appeal, the defendant's primary contention is that the trial court erroneously allowed the jury to determine that the air gun he carried during the break-in constituted a deadly weapon. We agree that, as a matter of law, an air gun in which a CO2 cartridge cannot be readily installed is not a deadly weapon. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

SC20828 - State v. Delacruz-Gomez ("In this appeal, we address two claims that the trial court improperly admitted unduly prejudicial evidence. The defendant, Raikes Y. Delacruz-Gomez, was convicted, following a jury trial, of assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 53a-167c (a) (1), and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-167a (a), after injuring a police officer assigned to a joint federal and state task force that was executing a warrant for his arrest. We granted certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction. The defendant contends that the Appellate Court incorrectly held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by admitting testimony naming the felony charges in the defendant's outstanding warrant (warrant charges) and identifying the task force that executed that warrant as the "Violent Fugitive Task Force." We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence pertaining to the warrant charges. We further conclude that, although the evidence pertaining to the name of the task force should not have been admitted, that evidence did not substantially sway the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

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

SC20742 - State v. Honsch ("In this appeal, we must consider the extent of the state's territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant when the defendant disputes whether the crime occurred within Connecticut's geographical boundaries. The defendant, Robert Honsch, appeals from his conviction of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court incorrectly denied his pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction because the state had failed to establish that the murder occurred in Connecticut, (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the murder, and (3) the trial court erroneously declined his request to provide the jury with an instruction on fingerprint evidence. We disagree with all three of the defendant's claims and affirm the trial court's judgment.")

• SC20742 Concurrence - State v. Honsch

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

AC46260 - State v. Jean-Baptiste ("The defendant, Oles Jean-Baptiste, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (1), assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c (a) (1), and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial court's alleged inadequate response to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC 45883 - State v. Carlson ("The defendant, Kristopher Carlson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant raises multiple claims concerning the trial court’s jury instructions on consciousness of guilt. Specifically, the defendant claims that (1) the instruction diluted the state’s burden to disprove the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) in a self-defense case, a consciousness of guilt instruction improperly burdens the defendant to explain his conduct in violation of his constitutional right not to testify, (3) the instruction was unwarranted based on the evidence presented at trial, (4) the jury was misled by the instruction, and (5) this court should exercise its supervisory powers and adopt a rule categorically prohibiting consciousness of guilt instructions. We conclude that the court did not err by giving a consciousness of guilt instruction and decline to adopt a rule prohibiting such an instruction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20708 - State v. Bember ("Following a jury trial, the defendant, Tyhitt Bember, was convicted of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-134 (a) (2), and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the state to question two of its witnesses about their cooperation agreements with the state during direct examination and that this questioning amounted to prosecutorial impropriety, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the testimony of the cooperating witnesses was reliable and admissible pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86p, and (3) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the recording of a jailhouse phone call and the .22 caliber revolver seized by the police as a result of information acquired from that recording violated his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. We reject the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

SC20692 - State v. Andres C. ("The defendant, Andres C., was convicted, after a court trial, of sexual assault in the third degree and risk of injury to a child. During the complainant's testimony at trial, she revealed that, after the assaults, she had engaged in therapy, and, during that therapy, she had kept journals, in Spanish, in which she had written about, among other things, her relationship with the defendant and his sexual abuse of her. Following this revelation, defense counsel requested that the trial court review the journals for potential statements and exculpatory information that should be disclosed to the defendant. After a discussion with the court about this revelation, the parties agreed that the complainant would provide the journals to the prosecutor, and, because the journals were written in Spanish, the prosecutor would enlist the assistance of a Spanish-speaking investigator on her staff to help review the journals. On the basis of the investigator's review, the prosecutor represented to the court that there was no material in the journals that was subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Out of an abundance of caution, however, she submitted four pages of the journals to the court for its review, indicating that she thought the pages were subject to General Statutes § 54-86f, the rape shield statute. Those four pages were translated into English and reviewed by the trial court, and the court disclosed one page to the defendant as potential impeachment material.

...

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.")

• SC20692 Concurrence - State v. Andres C.
• SC20692 Concurrence & Dissent - State v. Andres C.
• SC20692 Dissent - State v. Andres C.

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

AC46102 - State v. Nichols ("The defendant, Robert Lee Nichols, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). The defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial predicated on an outburst by the victim while the defendant was testifying at trial and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of sexual assault in the fourth degree. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.")

AC46170- State v. Richey ("The defendant, Michael Richey, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (2) (A). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence before the trial court was insufficient to sustain his conviction and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to provide the jury with an instruction on defense of premises. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC46060 - State v. Mallozzi ("The defendant, John Mallozzi, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a court trial, of fourteen counts of false statement in absentee balloting in violation of General Statutes § 9-359a and fourteen counts of forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (3).On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the court improperly permitted the state to amend its long form information in the middle of trial; (3) the court improperly denied defense counsel's request to obtain and disclose, in the middle of trial, an expert witness to rebut the state's expert witness; (4) his right to due process was violated by the lack of a requirement that the state disclose the substance of any expert opinion upon which it intended to rely at trial; (5) the court improperly denied his motion to strike the testimony of a witness, proffered by the prosecutor during the state's case-in-chief, after that same witness invoked her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination when she was called to testify by the defense; and (6) the court improperly denied his motion to dismiss on the ground of selective prosecution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

AC45519 - State v. Leuders ("The defendant, Heidi Leuders, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a court trial, of criminal damage of a landlord's property in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117e. The defendant makes three claims on appeal. First, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence that she intentionally damaged the tangible property of her landlord, Celly Roberts (landlord). Second, she claims that the trial court improperly denied her motion to suppress (a) evidence discovered following a warrantless entry into her residence and (b) statements she made to the police following her arrest. Finally, she claims that, at her sentencing, the court violated her federal and state constitutional rights to due process by considering conduct related to the crimes of which she was acquitted. We disagree with each of the defendant's claims and affirm the judgment of conviction.")

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