Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested without a warrant and charged with several crimes. Defendant filed a motion to be released without bond because a probable cause finding had not been made within forty-eight hours of his arrest. The trial court denied Defendant's motion. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the specific facts of this case, any violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was de minimis where (1) Defendant was present in the courthouse awaiting arraignment, at which point probable cause findings are typically made, prior to the expiration of the forty-eight hour period; and (2) the trial court found probable case for Defendant's arrest less than two hours after expiration of the forty-eight hour time period.View "State v. Heredia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of several offenses in connection with an incident involving Petitioner’s estranged girlfriend. Petitioner later filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that his counsel’s criminal prosecution shortly before Petitioner’s criminal trial constituted a conflict of interest. The habeas court denied Petitioner’s petition. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Petitioner’s claim failed on the merits. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a constitutionally impermissible risk that a jury would attribute the conduct of Petitioner’s trial counsel to Petitioner when his counsel had been acquitted of a dissimilar crime in the same judicial district in which Petitioner faced criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his trial counsel’s performance. View "Rodriguez v. Comm’r of Corr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with various criminal offenses in two informations. After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in the second degree, assault in the second and third degrees, and risk of injury to a child. After the convictions were affirmed on appeal, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court found Petitioner's pretrial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to provide Petitioner with adequate advice regarding a pretrial plea offer and ordered the trial court to resentence Petitioner in accordance with the sentence proposed in the plea offer. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the habeas court improperly circumvented the trial court's discretion to impose an appropriate sentence. Remanded.View "H.P.T. v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of risk of injury to a child and sexual assault in the fourth degree. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding (1) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments and in connection with defense counsel's cross-examination of key state's witnesses, and the prosecutorial impropriety deprived Defendant of his due process right to a fair trial; and (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence a video recording and transcript of a forensic interview of the victim under the tender years exception to the hearsay rule without first conducting a hearing. Remanded for a new trial.View "State v. Maguire" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion by improperly precluding Defendant from introducing, on relevancy grounds, evidence of prior sexual conduct that was admissible under the rape shield statute, in violation of Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to confrontation; and (2) the trial court’s preclusion of the evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Shaw" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued that, during sentencing, the trial court deprived him of his due process rights by improperly considering that Defendant decided to proceed to trial rather than accept a plea bargain. The Appellate Court declined to review Defendant’s sentencing claim on the grounds that it was unpreserved and that Defendant had not properly made an “affirmative request” for review in his main brief under State v. Golding. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the requirement that a defendant must “affirmatively request” Golding review in his main brief in order to receive appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims is overruled, and therefore, the Appellate Court improperly declined to review Defendant’s constitutional claims on that ground; (2) Defendant failed to establish that the trial court penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial; but (3) the use of the Court’s supervisory authority was warranted to prevent adverse effects on the public’s perception of the inherent fairness of the criminal justice system that may arise when a trial judge could appear to have considered a defendant’s decision to exercise his right to a trial during sentencing. Remanded for a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Elson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and other crimes. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the trial court as to Defendant’s convictions for the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, holding that certain evidence relating to the potential impeachment of a key prosecution witness should have been admitted at trial, and that the failure to admit the evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts; and (2) affirmed the trial court in all other respects, holding that the court did not err in its instructions to the jury and that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct. View "State v. Baltas" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he had been punished twice for the same offense and, thus, his convictions violated the proscription against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the two offenses of which Petitioner was charged and convicted were separate and distinct pursuant to the test set forth under Blockburger v. United States because (1) intent to kill is an element of second degree murder but is not an element of the offense of death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian; and (2) the offense of death of a child by a parent, guardian, or custodian by child abuse contains elements of proof not required to establish second degree murder.View "State v. Freeman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree and harassment in the second degree for allegedly threatening a coworker during a telephone call. The appellate court reversed, concluding (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that it could find Defendant guilty of the breach of the peace charge only if it found Defendant's offending speech was a real or true threat not entitled to protection under the First Amendment; and (2) where the telephone harassment statute bars conduct only, the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of the harassment charge because the the case was predicated entirely on Defendant's speech. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions on the breach of the peace charge were inadequate to ensure Defendant was not convicted on the basis of constitutionally protected speech; and (2) the telephone harassment statute applied to speech as well as conduct, but because Defendant did not have fair notice that she could be subjected to punishment for the verbal content of the telephone call, the harassment charge must be dismissed. View "State v. Moulton" on Justia Law

Complainants, an attorney and the Office of the Chief Public Defender, submitted a request for a declaratory ruling to the Connecticut Medical Examining Board asking whether physician participation in the execution of condemned inmates using lethal injection was permitted. Complainants then sent a letter regarding their request for a declaratory ruling. The Board convened an executive session to obtain legal advice about issues raised in the letter. Complainants then filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that Plaintiffs, the Board and its chairperson, violated the Freedom of Information Act by convening in executive session during the meeting for "purposes not permitted" under the Act. The Commission determined the executive session was impermissible under the Act. The trial court upheld the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the letter did not constitute notice of a pending claim as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-200, and therefore, the Board was not permitted to convene in executive session under the Act. View "Chairperson, Conn. Med. Examining Bd. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n" on Justia Law