Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or both. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by disallowing certain demonstrative evidence proffered by Defendant, by which Defendant sought to demonstrate to the jury how his alleged disability prevented him from performing two mobility based field sobriety tests under any conditions. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, rather than preventing Defendant from presenting his defense, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Defendant from utilizing a display that the court properly deemed unreliable to pursue his theory of defense. View "State v. Romanko" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of murder and one count of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly admitted evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct; (2) properly rejected Defendant’s claim under Brady v. Maryland that he was denied a fair trial because the state failed to disclose an alleged agreement or understanding with a key witness that she would be given a benefit if she testified for the state, as there was no agreement or understanding between the witness and the state prior to her testimony; and (3) properly permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge with respect to an African-American venireperson. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s decision to preclude the testimony of a key defense witness did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, nor was it improper on purely evidentiary grounds; (2) Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial impropriety during cross-examination and closing argument were without merit; (3) Defendant’s argument that his conviction was fundamentally unfair because the State relied on a different theory in his case than in the case against an alleged coassailant was without merit; (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for felony murder; and (5) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress oral and written statements to the police confessing his role in the murder. View "State v. Andrews" on Justia Law

Plaintiff leased property from Defendants pursuant to a lease agreement that included an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs later sued Defendants over disputes regarding the lease. After engaging in litigation with Plaintiff for more than two years, Defendants filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration under the parties’ lease agreement. Plaintiff objected to the motion, arguing that Defendants had waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause by engaging in lengthy litigation. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion, concluding, as a matter of law, that a party cannot waive enforcement of an arbitration clause in a contract. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the record was inadequate for review because the trial court failed to make any factual findings on the issue of waiver. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the legal basis of the trial court’s decision was at issue, a factual record on the question of waiver was not necessary to review the trial court’s decision; and (2) the trial court based its judgment on an incorrect statement of the law, and therefore, the court erred in granting Defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration. View "MSO, LLC v. DeSimone" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were two specialty food business and their respective owners. The current dispute arose when the companies signed a distribution agreement and orally promised to form a joint venture between the businesses. After one company formally terminated the distribution agreement, Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking to recover money damages for breach of an oral contract and promissory estoppel for failing to form the joint venture. The trial court found in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ claims except promissory estoppel and rendered judgment for Defendants on their breach of contract counterclaim. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects, holding that the trial court properly (1) calculated Plaintiffs’ damages; (2) rendered judgment for Defendants on their counterclaim; and (3) rendered judgment for Plaintiffs on their promissory estoppel claim. View "Weiss v. Smulders" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and operating a motor vehicle while having an elevated blood alcohol content. Defendant was also convicted of speeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress breath test reports, as the state experts who testified regarding certain breath tests fulfilled the requirements of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts; and (2) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his arrest, as the constable who made the arrest in the present case was a duly qualified special constable with the power to make the arrest. View "State v. Buckland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted with the Town of Bethel to perform electrical work in connection with the Town’s renovation of its high school. Plaintiff later sued the Town, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and claiming that the Town must reimburse it for additional costs incurred due to the Town’s ongoing asbestos abatement work at the school. The trial court rendered judgment for the Town in part, concluding that the Town's conduct did not fall within either of two judicial created exceptions to the enforcement of “no damages for delay” clauses adopted by the Court in White Oak Corp. v. Dep’t of Transportation. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation under any of the “no damages for delay” exceptions at issue, holding (1) the term “active interference,” as used in the contract, did not require a showing of bad faith or gross negligence; but (2) the Town’s conduct in this case did not rise to the level of active interference or fall within either of the White Oak exceptions. View "C & H Elec., Inc. v. Town of Bethel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted on a conditional plea of nolo contendere of possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that the police discovered after stopping Defendant incident to the detention of another individual, who was wanted for a violation of probation, while Defendant and the individual were walking together on a sidewalk. Defendant appealed, arguing that the officers had seized him in violation of Terry v. Ohio because they lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime. The Appellate Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that it is permissible for the police to briefly detain the companion of a suspect, incident to the lawful stop of the suspect, even though the police lack reasonable suspicion to believe the companion has engaged in or is engaging in criminal behavior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the police were authorized to stop and briefly detain Defendant, as a reasonable safety measure, in connection with the lawful detention of the individual he was accompanying because the police reasonable believed that the other individual was armed and dangerous. View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, administratrix of the estate of the decedent, brought a defective highway action under Conn. Gen. Stat. 13a-144 against the Department of Transportation alleging that a truck lost control as it traveled down Avon Mountain along Route 44, resulting in the death of the decedent. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state a claim under section 13a-144, claiming that the allegations did not fall within the limited exception to the general rule barring design defect claims under the defective highway statute. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that Plaintiff failed to allege an actionable highway defect under section 13a-144. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court properly determined that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim under section 13a-144, as the plan of design providing for the steep downhill grade, together with the absence of tangible safety measures, as implemented, did not create an otherwise actionable highway defect as defined by case law. View "Stotler v. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a defective highway action under Conn. Gen. Stat. 13a-144 against the Department of Transportation alleging that he sustained severe injuries when a truck descending Avon Mountain along Route 44 experienced brake failure and collided with multiple vehicles, including Plaintiff’s. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under section 13a-144, and therefore, the action was barred by sovereign immunity. Specifically, Defendant asserted that the allegations did not fall within the limited exception to the general rule barring design defect claims under the defective highway statute. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action under section 13a-144. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by sovereign immunity because it did not fall within the ambit of the defective highway statute. View "Cummings v. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law