Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court upholding Defendant's conviction of five counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court properly declined to give the jury a specific unanimity instructions as to counts one, five, and six.During trial, defense counsel requested that the court provide a specific unanimity instruction as to the counts at issue on appeal because the evidence showed there were discrete incidents, not a continuing course of conduct. The court declined to give the instruction. On appeal, Defendant argued that counts one, five, and six were duplicitous because each count charged him with a single violation of Conn. Rev. Stat. 53-21(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, from the evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that Defendant's criminal acts constituted a single criminal episode and thus did not constitute multiple, separate incidents of conduct under the applicable test. View "State v. Douglas C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the count of risk of injury to a child pertaining to one of the complainants and otherwise affirmed Defendant's conviction of several counts of sexual assault, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the remaining convictions.Defendant was convicted of several counts of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, and risk of injury to a child. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction on certain counts. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction for risk of injury to a child; and (2) the prosecutor's use of Defendant's prior misconduct was improper, but the jury's verdict would not have been different in the absence of that comment. View "State v. Gary S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of felony murder, with robbery in the third degree as the predicate felony and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the prosecutor committed improprieties during closing argument by arguing facts that were not in evidence and by making inferences that were unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of felony murder with the predicate felony of third-degree robbery; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in improprieties during closing argument that deprived Defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part Defendant's petition for review of the trial court's denial of his motion for modification of the $20 million bond that was set in connection with murder charges against him, holding that remand was required for the trial court to consider Petitioner's request for a ten percent bail option pursuant to Practice Book 38-8.In his petition, Defendant argued that the bail amount was unreasonably high and that the trial court erroneously concluded that it lacked the authority to grant Defendant's request for a ten percent cash option. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) given the extraordinary flight risk and public safety considerations presented in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the bond amount at $20 million; and (2) the trial judge incorrectly concluded that he lacked discretion to offer Defendant a ten percent cash bail option under Practice Book 38-8. View "State v. Pan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the product liability claim against it, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that personal jurisdiction was not authorized under Connecticut's applicable long-arm statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 33-929(f).Section 33-929(f) subjects foreign corporations to suit brought by a resident of the state on a cause of action "arising out of" the corporation's distribution of goods with the reasonable expectation that the goods are intended to be used, and are so used, in Connecticut. At issue was whether Defendant's contacts with Connecticut were sufficiently "related to" the litigation to satisfy Connecticut's long-arm statute and specific personal jurisdiction under the due process clause. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that the "arise out of or relate to" requirement was not met in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish that their claim against Defendant arose from or related to Defendant's forum contacts. View "Adams v. Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's conviction for one count of arson in the first degree, eight counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and four counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by applying incorrect and convincing Defendant under a provision he was not formally charged with violating.On appeal, Defendant raised three claims of error relating to his conviction on the counts alleging risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction in part, holding (1) this Court's reading of State v. Schriver, 542 A.2d 686 (Conn. 1988), and its progeny leads it to reject Defendant's first two claims on this record; and (2) the trial court committed reversible error by finding Defendant guilty of risk of injury to a child based on its application of the elements of the situation prong rather than of the act prong, as originally charged. View "State v. Ares" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentional manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on combat by agreement, but the error was harmless.On appeal, Defendant raised four allegations of error, including prosecutorial misconduct and error in the denial of his motion for a new trial in light of his contention that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the jury's deliberations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on combat by agreement, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sexual assault in the first degree and other crimes, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the victim's out-of-court statements under the tender years exception to the hearsay rule.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain out-of-court statements made by the victim, in admitting a transcript of a recorded but modified conversation between the victim and the victim's mother, and in denying his request for a continuance during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the victim's out-of-court statements were properly admitted; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his second argument on appeal; and (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a continuance. View "State v. Ortega" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts each of sexual assault in the first degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal failed.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under State v. Walker, 212 A.3d 1244 (Conn. 2019), by admitting certain testimony, but the violation was harmless under State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 832 (Conn. 1989); (2) Defendant failed to prove a violation of his constitutional right to due process; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying either Defendant's supplemental motion for a new trial or his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Plaintiff had failed to establish ownership of a disputed parcel of property by adverse possession but reversed the trial court's determination that Defendant had established its counterclaim for slander of title, holding that the trial court erred in part.Defendant held record title to the disputed parcel at issue, which abutted Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff brought this quiet title action alleging that her predecessors in title had acquired fee ownership of the parcel by adverse possession. Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging slander of title. The trial court rendered judgment for Defendant as to all claims and counterclaims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) correctly determined that Plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession of the parcel; but (2) erred in determining that Defendant established its counterclaim for slander of title. View "Dowling v. Heirs of Bond" on Justia Law