Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. Defendant appealed, contending, among other things, that statements he made to the court during a pretrial hearing and at sentencing indicating dissatisfaction with the performance of his appointed counsel resulted in a clear and unequivocal request invoking the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment. The appellate court affirmed Defendant's conviction, concluding that Defendant's statements to the court did not develop into a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to self-representation during the criminal proceedings.View "State v. Pires" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered conditional pleas of nolo contendere to several felony offenses. The appellate court affirmed. Petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Petitioner's appellate counsel, who also served as his trial counsel, failed to file a petition for certification with the Supreme Court challenging the propriety of the appellate court's judgment. The habeas court granted the petition in part and ordered that Petitioner's right to file a petition for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court be restored. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Petitioner failed to introduce evidence that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficiency. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Petitioner's habeas action was not justiciable because it was not ripe for adjudication. Remanded with direction to dismiss the habeas petition.View "Janulawicz v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to possession of narcotics with intent to sell to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school, and possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress with respect to the narcotics and handgun found in a plastic bag inside the trunk of his vehicle. Specifically, Defendant argued that the search of bags inside the trunk of his vehicle could not be conducted within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement under the Connecticut constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state constitution does not prohibit the warrantless search of a closed container located in the trunk of a vehicle conducted during an otherwise constitutional warrantless search of a vehicle. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Upon following up on complaints from Defendant’s neighbor relating to Defendant’s keeping of animals in his residence, a police officer concluded that a “welfare check” was necessary and made a warrantless entry into Defendant’s home. Defendant subsequently entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of cruelty to animals. Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress on the ground that the warrantless entry was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the evidence did not permit a finding that the police reasonably believed that a warrantless entry was necessary to help a person inside the dwelling who was in immediate need of assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances present in this case, a police officer reasonably would have believed that an emergency existed inside Defendant’s home. View "State v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree. After Defendant was released from prison he was found to have violated the terms and conditions of his probation by engaging in criminal conduct. Accordingly, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation. Defendant appealed, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he had violated his probation. Before oral argument, however, Defendant pleaded guilty to the criminal charges upon which the finding rested. The appellate court subsequently dismissed as moot Defendant's appeal. Defendant appealed, arguing that his habeas corpus action collaterally attacking his criminal conviction revived the controversy such that mootness was averted. During the pendency of Defendant's appeal, the habeas court dismissed Defendant's habeas corpus action. The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Defendant's appeal, holding that dismissal of the habeas corpus action extinguished any claim to a live controversy in this appeal. View "State v. Milner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight counts of sexual assault in the first degree and eight counts of risk of injury to a child. The sixteen counts were predicated on four separate incidents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of each of the sixteen counts, as there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant abused the complainant on four separate and distinct occasions; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in withholding certain portions of the records of the Department of Children and Families relating to the complainant; and (3) the prosecutor did not engage in improper argument during closing argument. View "State v. Stephen J. R." on Justia Law