Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of employing a minor in an obscene performance in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-196a, sexual assault in the first degree, and other offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to sever the sexual offenses with the nonsexual offenses and in joining the informations for trial; (2) the obscene performance statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant's conduct, and the First Amendment did not require the Court to undertake an independent appellate review of that conviction; (3) the trial court's potentially incorrect rulings, including those relating to the excludion from evidence video recordings of forensic interviews of the victim, were harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions of assault in the third degree, criminal violation of a protective order, and stalking in the first degree. View "State v. Michael R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question of law concerning the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-37 to this case, concluding that section 53-37 did not apply because Plaintiff's complaint did not allege any speech constituting an "advertisement."Plaintiff brought this reenforcement action challenging 53-37, which provides that "[a]ny person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor." Plaintiff alleged that the statue violated his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and sought declaratory and injunctive relief seeking permanently to enjoin the enforcement of the statute. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action because he had failed to allege an injury in fact. The Supreme Court answered a certified question regarding the issue by answering that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that section 53-37 was not intended to encompass the type of personal, noncommercial speech alleged in Plaintiff's complaint. View "Cerame v. Lamont" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.At issue before the jury in this case was to decide whether to credit the testimony of two men, Eric Canty and Jules Kierce, who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the murder committed years earlier of Isaiah Gantt, for which Defendant was convicted. Canty and Kierce were both incarcerated when they first contacted the state about the case, and both received consideration in return for testifying pursuant to cooperation agreements. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in failing to give the jury a jailhouse informant instruction requested by defense counsel; (2) did not abuse its discretion in admitting the cooperation agreements of Canty and Kierce into evidence; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow cross-examination on the details of a prior arrest of Kierce. View "State v. Calhoun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing Defendant's conviction following her conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, holding that the appellate court incorrectly determined that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence seized by the police following a warrantless entry into her apartment on the grounds that the exigent circumstances and emergency aid doctrines supported the warrantless search of her apartment. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the warrantless entry was supported by the exigent circumstances doctrine; and (2) the evidence supported an objectively reasonable belief that someone inside Defendant's apartment was in need of emergency medical aid. View "State v. Curet" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court upholding Defendant's conviction of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(a) and the enhancement of his sentence under Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-227a(g), holding that the appellate court correctly concluded that the trial court had properly sentenced Defendant as a third time offender under section 14-227a(g).At issue on appeal was whether the appellate court erred in concluding that the elements of Florida's driving under the influence statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. 316.193, which Defendant had twice been convicted of violating, were substantially the same as the elements of section 14-227a(a) for enhancement purposes under section 14-227a(g). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the essential elements of section 14-227a(a) and section 316.193 were substantially the same. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court improperly failed to order that certain material be turned over to the defense and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by not ordering disclosure of the victims' psychiatric records to the defense. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the trial court (1) committed harmful error by failing to order that exculpatory and relevant impeachment material contained in the victims' psychiatric records be turned over to the defense; (2) improperly precluded cross-examination of the mothers of the victims concerning their U visa applications; and (3) improperly instructed the jury. View "State v. Juan A. G.-P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements he had made during two separately recorded interrogations of him by police officers, holding that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress.The two interrogations at issue occurred on the same day. As to the first interrogation, Defendant claimed that the police failed to advise him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Defendant further claimed that the second interrogation was tainted by the alleged illegality of the first interrogation. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and, following a jury trial, convicted Defendant of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Miranda warnings were not required for the first interrogation because it was not custodial; and (2) the failure to provide the warnings did not taint the second interrogation. View "State v. Brandon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm. In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that his trial counsel's concession of Petitioner's guilt to the manslaughter charge without Petitioner's prior approval violated his rights to effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and personal autonomy under McCoy v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __ (2018). The habeas court denied the petition, finding Petitioner's claims to be without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court correctly determined that Petitioner's right to autonomy was not implicated under the facts of this case; and (2) Petitioner's second claim on appeal was unpreserved. View "Grant v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court joining for trial, pursuant to Practice Book 41-19, sexual assault, risk of injury to a child, and strangulation charges with threatening and disorderly conduct charges, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) joined the sexual assault cases and the threatening and disorderly conduct cases for trial; and (2) denied Defendant's request, as a remedy for the disclosure of his prior incarceration by one of the state’s witnesses, that he be allowed to testify about the nonsexual nature of his prior felony convictions without opening the door to being asked on cross-examination about the nature of those convictions. View "State v. James A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of sexual assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child, and conspiracy to commit risk of injury to a child, holding that the case must be remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the sexual assault count.On appeal from his convictions, Defendant argued that each count was duplicitous because each count charged him with a single violation of the underlying statute when the evidence established multiple, separate incidents of conduct and, consequently, the court's failure to either grant his request for a bill of particulars or a specific unanimity instruction violated his constitutional right to jury unanimity. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) count two, charging the defendant with a single violation of Conn. Stat. Ann. § 53-21 (a) (2), was not duplicitous, and thus the trial court’s failure to grant the defendant’s request for a specific unanimity instruction or a bill of particulars as to that count did not violate his constitutional right to jury unanimity; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his remaining convictions. View "State v. Joseph V." on Justia Law