Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of murder, holding that the appellate court did not err.On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in joining Defendant's case with the codefendant's case and that Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated when the trial court allowed a state's firearms examiner to testify about the findings of a second firearms examiner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the appellate court did not err in determining that the trial court's joinder of Defendant's and his codefendant's cases was proper; (2) the admission of CSLI information into evidence was not error; and (3) the appellate court did not err by not determining that Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated by the challenged testimony, but the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Tyus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying in part Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the habeas court correctly concluded that Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had suffered prejudice from the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.Petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica who held a valid green card, pleaded guilty, pursuant to the Alford doctrine, to risk of injury to a child and strangulation in the third degree. The federal government subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner based, in part, on his conviction of risk of injury to a child. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that he would have gone to trial had his trial counsel not performed deficiently. The habeas court denied the petition as to the claim at issue in this appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing that there was a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer and proceeded to trial. View "Grant v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of felony murder and other crimes, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) Defendant failed to establish under the third prong of State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989), that the trial court violated his federal due process rights by detaining three eyewitnesses to secure their attendance at trial; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to read passages from the witnesses' grand jury transcripts to the jury for substantive purposes pursuant to State v. Whelan, 513 A.2d 86 (Conn. 1986). View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgments of the trial court revoking Defendant's probation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a.32, holding that Defendant's conduct leading to the revocation was not entitled to First Amendment protection.After an escalated emotional confrontation with the staff of his child's preschool the trial court found that the State had met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant had violated the standard terms of his probation by violating Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-181(a). On appeal, Defendant argued that his remarks warranted First Amendment protection because the State's evidence was insufficient to establish that his remarks constituted a true threat. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in concluding that Defendant's remarks warranted First Amendment protection. View "State v. Taveras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sexual assault in the first and fourth degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection brought pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), objecting to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges to two prospective members of the jury; and (2) his conviction for risk of injury to a child violated constitutional double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit clear error in determining that Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury selection process in his case was tainted by purposeful discrimination; and (2) Defendant's conviction for two counts of risk of injury did not violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. View "State v. Jose A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that Defendant's confrontation rights were not violated by the admission into evidence of a codefendant's dual inculpatory statement to a fellow inmate acting at the behest of the state police, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder, home invasion, burglary, and other crimes. The appellate court affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court correctly concluded that the admission of the codefendant's dual inculpatory statement did not violate Defendant's confrontation rights under either the United States or Connecticut constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "State v. Patel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the appeal of the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities finding that Defendants - Edge Fitness and Club Fitness - did not engage in discriminatory public accommodations practices, holding that there is no implied gender privacy exception to Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-64, the Public Accommodation Act.The trial court concluded that women's only workout areas in otherwise public gyms did not violate section 46a-64. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations are limited to those expressly provided by the plain language of section 46a-64; and (2) Defendants' gyms were places of public accommodation that denied the complainants full and equal accommodations on the basis of their sex. View "Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to correct.Defendant, a juvenile offender, was convicted of two counts each of kidnapping in the first degree and sexual assault in the first degree, among other offenses. The sentencing court imposed a total effective sentence of sixty years of incarceration. Relying on later changes to juvenile sentencing law, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court rejected Defendant's claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the sentencing court substantially relied on a materially false and unreliable theory; and (2) therefore, Defendant's sentence was imposed in an illegal manner in violation of his right to due process, and the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to correct. View "State v. Belcher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's judgments following Defendant's conditional pleas of nolo contendere to charges of sale of a controlled substance and violation of probation, holding that Defendant could not meet the requirements to establish classical aggrievement.On appeal, Defendant, who was Caucasian, argued that his conviction violated his right to due process because the statute under which he was convicted violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution because it was enacted to discriminate against African Americans and Mexican Americans. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Defendant could not bring his constitutional challenge in his individual capacity based on the alleged violation of others' equal protection rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to meet the requirements to establish classical aggrievement. View "State v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction, holding that the warrantless canine sniff conducted by law enforcement officers of the exterior door to a motel room for the purpose of detecting the presence of illegal drugs inside the room violated the warrant requirement of Conn. Const. Art. I, 7.After Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses he filed a motion to suppress the evidence that had been seized from his motel room pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, Defendant entered a conditional plea of solo contenders. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in concluding (1) the canine sniff was not a search that violated Defendant's rights under article 1, section 7; and (2) the visual sweep of Defendant's motel room was justified by the exigencies of the situation. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Correa" on Justia Law