Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree by means of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to admit evidence of an online conversation proffered by Defendant to impeach one of the state’s witnesses on the grounds that the document was inadmissible because it was improperly authenticated. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that assuming, without deciding, that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the proffered evidence, the ruling was harmless. View "State v. Eleck" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful restraint in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor engaged in certain improprieties that deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that reversal of Defendant’s convictions was unwarranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, considering the alleged prosecutorial improprieties within the context of the entire trial, the instances of alleged prosecutorial impropriety identified by Defendant did not affect the fairness of the trial or prejudice Defendant under the standard set forth in State v. Williams. View "State v. Ciullo" on Justia Law

When Sandy Niro commenced this action for dissolution of her marriage to Peter Niro, she served a subpoena duces tecum on Peter’s brother, Anthony Nero, and Anthony’s wife, Nanette Niro (together, Plaintiffs), seeking certain financial records. The trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motions to quash the subpoenas and ordered them to produce the records. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a writ of error with the Supreme Court challenging the trial court’s order of production. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the trial court’s order was not an appealable final judgment under the test established in State v. Curcio, and therefore, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the writ of error. View "Niro v. Niro" on Justia Law

Upon responding to a 911 call from a tenant of a rooming house reporting a disturbance involving a gun, police officers entered an unlocked attic space in the house and retrieved marijuana and a gun. After a jury trial, Defendant, who resided in a room on the third floor of the house, was convicted of attempt to commit criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of a pistol, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police as products of an unlawful search, claiming he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic. The appellate court affirmed, holding that, because of Defendant’s lack of control over the access of others to the attic, Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in that space that society would recognize as reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate court properly resolved the issue by virtue of its well-reasoned decision.View "State v. Pierre" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing the crime of robbery in the first degree. In its information charging Defendant, the state alleged that Defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. During trial, however, the court instructed the jury that Defendant could be found guilty if all other elements of the crime had been proven and if any person participating in the commission of the crime possessed a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could find him guilty under a theory of liability not set forth in the State’s information. Because Defendant did not preserve his claim for appellate review by objecting to the jury instruction, he sought review under State v. Golding. The appellate court declined to review Defendant’s claim on appeal, concluding that Defendant had implicitly waived any objection to the jury instructions under the rule set forth in State v. Kitchens. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not implicitly waive his claim because he was never provided with the court’s actual proposed charge and consequently did not have a meaningful opportunity to review the instructions.View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sixteen federal felony offenses arising from actions he took while acting as the mayor of Bridgeport. After his release from prison, Defendant applied for reinstatement to the bar. The local standing committee issued a report in which it concluded that Defendant was fit to practice law and recommended that he be reinstated. The trial court denied Defendant’s application, concluding that the record did not substantiate a finding of good moral character and fitness to practice law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that the standing committee abused its discretion when it determined that Defendant was presently fit to practice law and recommended his reinstatement.View "State Grievance Comm. v. Ganim" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm as an accessory, among other crimes. The convictions arose from a shooting that occurred during an altercation in a housing complex. The appellate court reversed the manslaughter conviction, concluding that insufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant acted as an accessory by intentionally aiding Donald Wilson, the person who fired the fatal shots. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant assisted Wilson in the commission of the homicide.View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a professional negligence action against Defendant, a licensed clinical social worker, alleging that Defendant negligently failed to treat Plaintiff after Plaintiff disclosed to Defendant that he had viewed child pornography. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s failure to treat him caused him to be subjected to a police task force raid, which allegedly caused Plaintiff mental distress and other injuries due to potential criminal prosecution. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the ground that it would violate public policy to allow Plaintiff to profit from his own criminal acts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it would clearly violate public policy to impose a duty on Defendant to protect Plaintiff from injuries arising from his potential criminal prosecution for the illegal downloading, viewing, and/or possession of child pornography.View "Greenwald v. Van Handel" on Justia Law

From 1989 to 2006, Larry Sax, a certified public accountant, prepared federal and state income tax returns for Plaintiff on behalf of the accounting firm Cohen Burger, Schwartz & Sax, LLC. In 2009, Plaintiff filed a professional malpractice and negligence action against Sax and the accounting firm (collectively, Defendants). Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable three year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact did not exist as to whether Defendants’ alleged fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. The Appellate Court affirmed. Plaintiff appealed, contending that, in connection with a claim of first impression regarding shifting the burden of proving fraudulent concealment in cases involving fiduciaries, the Appellate Court improperly concluded that there was no fiduciary duty under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to establish a fiduciary relationship with Defendants, his theory of fraudulent concealment did not serve to toll the three year statute of limitations for torts. View "Iacurci v. Sax" on Justia Law

The Department of Environmental Protection (Department), acting through its office of Long Island Sound Programs (Office), ordered Plaintiffs, Gail and Thomas Lane, to remove a boardwalk and dock from their property because they had been installed without the statutorily required permits. The Office then denied Plaintiffs’ application for a certificate of permission to retain and maintain the structures and to install a new boardwalk pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 22a-363b(a)(2). The Department upheld the Office’s rulings. The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ administrative appeal. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court properly interpreted section 22a-363b(a) in concluding that the trial court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ administrative appeal. View "Lane v. Comm’r of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law