Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the product liability claim against it, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that personal jurisdiction was not authorized under Connecticut's applicable long-arm statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 33-929(f).Section 33-929(f) subjects foreign corporations to suit brought by a resident of the state on a cause of action "arising out of" the corporation's distribution of goods with the reasonable expectation that the goods are intended to be used, and are so used, in Connecticut. At issue was whether Defendant's contacts with Connecticut were sufficiently "related to" the litigation to satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and specific personal jurisdiction under the due process clause. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the "arise out of or relate to" requirement was not met in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish that their claim against Defendant arose from or related to Defendant's forum contacts. View "Adams v. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's conviction for one count of arson in the first degree, eight counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and four counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by applying incorrect and convincing Defendant under a provision he was not formally charged with violating.On appeal, Defendant raised three claims of error relating to his conviction on the counts alleging risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction in part, holding (1) this Court's reading of State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686 (Conn. 1988), and its progeny leads it to reject Defendant's first two claims on this record; and (2) the trial court committed reversible error by finding Defendant guilty of risk of injury to a child based on its application of the elements of the situation prong rather than of the act prong, as originally charged. View "State v. Ares" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentional manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on combat by agreement, but the error was harmless.On appeal, Defendant raised four allegations of error, including prosecutorial misconduct and error in the denial of his motion for a new trial in light of his contention that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the jury's deliberations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on combat by agreement, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sexual assault in the first degree and other crimes, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the victim's out-of-court statements under the tender years exception to the hearsay rule.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain out-of-court statements made by the victim, in admitting a transcript of a recorded but modified conversation between the victim and the victim's mother, and in denying his request for a continuance during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the victim's out-of-court statements were properly admitted; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his second argument on appeal; and (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a continuance. View "State v. Ortega" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts each of sexual assault in the first degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal failed.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under State v. Walker, 212 A.3d 1244 (Conn. 2019), by admitting certain testimony, but the violation was harmless under State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 832 (Conn. 1989); (2) Defendant failed to prove a violation of his constitutional right to due process; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying either Defendant's supplemental motion for a new trial or his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Plaintiff had failed to establish ownership of a disputed parcel of property by adverse possession but reversed the trial court's determination that Defendant had established its counterclaim for slander of title, holding that the trial court erred in part.Defendant held record title to the disputed parcel at issue, which abutted Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff brought this quiet title action alleging that her predecessors in title had acquired fee ownership of the parcel by adverse possession. Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging slander of title. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendant as to all claims and counterclaims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) correctly determined that Plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession of the parcel; but (2) erred in determining that Defendant established its counterclaim for slander of title. View "Dowling v. Heirs of Bond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the town of Hamden in this tax dispute, holding that the appellate court correctly determined that the word "submit" in Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-63c(a) unambiguously requires that an assessor receive income and expense forms by June 1.Conn. Gen. Stat. 12-63c(a) requires the owners of certain rental property to "submit" income and expense information to their municipal tax assessor "not later than the first day of June." Plaintiff in this case mailed the relevant information on May 31, 2016, but the assessor did not receive the forms until June 2, 2016. The assessor imposed a ten percent penalty on Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the penalty was improper because its timely mailing was sufficient under the statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the word "submit" requires receipt of the income and expense forms no later than June 1; and (2) the ten percent penalty imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to section 12-63(d) was valid. View "Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Town of Hamden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of three counts of custodial interference in the second degree, holding that Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-98(a)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that section 53a-98(a)(3) is unconstitutionally vague in its application to her and that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. The appellate court rejected both claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that section 53a-98(a)(3) was not unconstitutionally vague in its application to her and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of three counts of custodial interference in the second degree. View "State v. Lori T." on Justia Law

In this companion case to Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, __ A.3d __ (2022), which the Court also decided today, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the habeas court dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book 23-29 sua sponte and without prior notice, holding that remand was required.Petitioner filed a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting four claims. The habeas court, sua sponte and without prior notice, dismissed the petition pursuant to Practice Book 23-29. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the habeas court did not have the benefit of the Court's decision in Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 A.3d 368 (Conn. 2020), remand was required for the habeas court to first determine whether any grounds exist for it to decline to issue the writ pursuant to Practice Book 23-24. View "Boria v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the superior court dismissing Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Practice Book section 23-29 requires the habeas court to provide prior notice of the court’s intention to dismiss, on its own motion, a petition that it deems legally deficient and an opportunity to be heard on the papers by filing a written response.Acting on its own motion and without prior notice, the habeas court dismissed Petitioner's habeas petition as repetitious under section 23-29(3). The appellate court dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a dismissal under section 23-29, which occurs after the writ has issued and the action has commenced, requires some procedural safeguards, including prior notice and an opportunity to submit a written response, but not a full hearing; and (2) on remand, if the writ is issued, and the habeas court again dismisses Petitioner's habeas petition on its own motion pursuant to section 23-29, it must provider Petitioner with prior notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or written response to the proposed basis for dismissal. View "Brown v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law