Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of three counts of first degree sexual assault and three counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial impropriety in her questioning of the victim; (2) the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial impropriety during closing and rebuttal arguments; and (3) the trial court did not violate Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-84(b) or infringe on Defendant's constitutional right to remain silent when it denied his request to instruct the jury that he elected not to testify and instead referred to his failure to testify. View "State v. Michael T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of six counts of capital felony, among other crimes, holding that Connecticut's individual voir dire process protected Defendant's right to a fair trial by assessing and mitigating the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity about this notorious case.The State charged Defendant with six counts of capital felony, three counts of murder, four counts of kidnapping, and other crimes. Following extensive pretrial motions practice, Defendant's case was tried to a jury, which returned a guilty verdict on all counts. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant to six consecutive death sentences. On appeal, Defendant claimed, among other allegations of error, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to change the venue of his trial given the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the pretrial publicity did not result in actual jury prejudice that deprived Defendant of a fair trial; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Komisarjevsky" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Conn. Gen. Stat. 28-9 provided authority for Governor Ned Lamont to issue executive orders during the civil preparedness emergency he declared pursuant to the statute in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the statute passes constitutional muster.In response to the pandemic, Governor Lamont issued certain executive orders that limited various commercial activities at the State's bars and restaurants. At issue in this case was whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a "serious disaster" pursuant to section 28-9 and whether that statute conferred authority on the governor to issue the challenged executive orders. The Supreme Court held (1) Governor Lamont did not exceed his statutory authority when he issued the challenged orders; and (2) section 28-9 is not an unconstitutional delegation of the General Assembly's legislative powers to the governor. View "Casey v. Lamont" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest.Defendant was convicted of one count of murder and sentenced to fifty years of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that his federal constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated during trial when the court denied his motions to dismiss his counsel without adequately inquiring into certain bases for his motions and when the court failed to conduct any inquiry into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court inadequately inquired into the bases for Defendant's motions to dismiss defense counsel. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner could not prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.Petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree. Later, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations prior to his trial. The appellate court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that his attorney did not adequately advise him of his maximum sentencing exposure if convicted of the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree. View "Moore v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of three counts of sexual assault in the first degree and other crimes, holding that neither the structure nor the content of the prosecutor's closing argument deprived Defendant of his constitutional rights.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor deprived him of his constitutional rights to present a closing argument and to a fair trial by reserving her analysis of certain evidence for the rebuttal portion of closing argument and by mischaracterizing other evidence during rebuttal. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims of prosecutorial impropriety failed. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments during closing argument at Petitioner's criminal trial.Petitioner was convicted of murder. On appeal, the appellate court concluded that at least one of the prosecutor's comments during closing argument violated Petitioner's constitutional right to a fair trial but that Petitioner had not been prejudiced by the improper remarks. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure to Petitioner's criminal trial counsel to object to the prosecutor's improper remarks did not undermine the Court's confidence in the verdict. View "Ross v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's motion because the motion sought only to modify Defendant's conviction, not his sentence.Defendant was convicted of felony murder and manslaughter. The trial court merged the conviction for manslaughter with the felony murder conviction for sentencing purposes. In his motion to correct an illegal sentence, Defendant argued that his sentence was illegal under the supervisory rule set forth in State v. Polanco, 61 A.3d 1084 (2013). The trial court concluded that Polanco did not apply retroactively and denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Defendant, Denise Merrill, Secretary of the State, intros action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Defendant's change of the absentee ballot application for the August 11, 2020 primary election to add COVID-19 as a new reason for requesting an absentee ballot pursuant to Executive Order No. 7QQ, holding that the trial court did not err.At issue in this public interest appeal was whether Governor Ned Lamont's executive order, which was later ratified by the legislature and which modified Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-135 by adding COVID-19 as a permissible reason for absentee voting violates Conn. Const. art. VI, 7. The trial court granted jumtgnet for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Executive Order No. 7QQ does not violate Article 6, Section 7. View "Fay v. Merrill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court denying habeas corpus relief after concluding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Petitioner from litigating the issue of whether he was prejudiced he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments during closing argument at his criminal trial, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice.Petitioner, who was convicted of murder, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by, among other things, failing to object to the prosecutor's improper remarks during closing argument. The court denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered prejudice. The appellate court affirmed on the grounds that Petitioner was collaterally estopped from litigating the issue of prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply; and (2) Petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel's performance. View "Ross v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law