Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant, who had an extensive weapons collection, was transporting a dirk knife, police baton and other weapons from his former residence in Connecticut to his new residence in Massachusetts when he was involved in a traffic accident. The State subsequently charged Defendant with six counts of having a weapon in a motor vehicle in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 29-38(a). A jury found Defendant guilty of two counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the current statutory scheme, which categorically bars the transportation of a dirk knife and police baton by motor vehicle from a former residence to a new residence, impermissibly infringes on a person’s constitutional right under the second amendment to possess those weapons. View "State v. DeCiccio" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim of error in the admission of out-of-court statements of one of the victims through the testimony of a police officer to provide context for Defendant’s admission to the conduct underlying the charges against him was not properly preserved; (2) even assuming that certain out-of-court statements of one of the victims that were admitted through the testimony of the state’s expert as examples of their age inappropriate knowledge were improperly admitted, any impropriety was harmless; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by any purported prosecutorial impropriety. View "State v. Paul B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants, Plaintiff's employer and manager, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her physical disability and/or her perceived disability, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the disability discrimination claim to the extent that it alleged a cause of action based on a perceived physical disability, concluding that a cause of action based on a perceived disability is not a legally recognized action in Connecticut. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act not only protects individuals who have a physical disability, but also individuals who are regarded by their employers as having a physical disability. View "Desrosiers v. Diageo N. Am., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of intentional manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his conviction violated his constitutionally protected right against double jeopardy because a reasonable possibility existed that he was acquitted of the offense at an earlier trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s conviction did not violate right against double jeopardy; and (2) any error committed by the trial court in construing the term “crime of violence” and in instructing the jury on the elements of the various offenses that fall within the definition of “crime of violence” was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Terwilliger" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and larceny in the first degree. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Nearly nine years later, Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his counsel failed to call two witnesses whose testimony would have contradicted that of an important state’s witness regarding Petitioner’s motive to commit the offenses for which he was found guilty. The habeas court denied the petition and, further, denied Petitioner’s request for certification to appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that assuming, without deciding, that the habeas court’s denial of certification was an abuse of discretion, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to a new trial. View "Sanchez v. Comm’r of Corr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of assault of public safety personnel. Defendant appealed, arguing that his rights to equal protection were violated, along with the same rights of a venireperson, C.D., who was excluded from the jury on the basis of C.D.’s answer to a question about race. Defendant further argued that the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory authority to disallow peremptory challenges based on answers to the question about race in the juror questionnaire. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the constitutional rights of Defendant and C.D. were not violated, as the prosecutor articulated a race neutral, nonpretextual explanation for his peremptory challenge; and (2) the Court declines to invoke its supervisory authority in the present case. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement officers as a result of their warrantless entry into a bedroom where he was sleeping. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that it was unreasonable for the police to assume that Defendant was present in the bedroom and posed an imminent threat of harm to the apartment’s occupants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the police officers reasonably believed that the warrantless entry into the bedroom was necessary to protect their own safety and the safety of others on the premises, and therefore, the entry did not violate Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. View "State v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of accessory to assault in the first degree by means of a dangerous weapon. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress the victim’s out-of-court and in-court identifications of him as one of the victim’s assailants. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that the admission of Defendant’s identifications following an unnecessarily suggestive procedure by the police violated Defendant’s constitutional rights, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) contrary to the Court’s holding in State v. Gordon, the improper admission of suggestive and unreliable identification is subject to harmless error analysis; and (2) assuming, without deciding, that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification testimony, the error was harmless. View "State v. Artis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful restraint in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor engaged in certain improprieties that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that reversal of Defendant’s convictions was unwarranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, considering the alleged prosecutorial improprieties within the context of the entire trial, the instances of alleged prosecutorial impropriety identified by Defendant did not affect the fairness of the trial or prejudice Defendant under the standard set forth in State v. Williams. View "State v. Ciullo" on Justia Law

Upon responding to a 911 call from a tenant of a rooming house reporting a disturbance involving a gun, police officers entered an unlocked attic space in the house and retrieved marijuana and a gun. After a jury trial, Defendant, who resided in a room on the third floor of the house, was convicted of attempt to commit criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of a pistol, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police as products of an unlawful search, claiming he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic. The appellate court affirmed, holding that, because of Defendant’s lack of control over the access of others to the attic, Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in that space that society would recognize as reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate court properly resolved the issue by virtue of its well-reasoned decision.View "State v. Pierre" on Justia Law