Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on any of her claims of error.The Commissioner of Children and Families filed these petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights with respect to her daughter and son after Mother admitted that she had sent explicitly sexual photographs of her daughter to several persons, including a registered sex offender. During the proceedings, Mother filed four motions for a continuance. The trial court granted the first three motions but denied the fourth. The court then rendered judgments terminating Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother's constitutional due process right to present a defense to the termination of her parental rights in denying the motion for a continuance. View "In re Ivory W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of felony murder and other crimes, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court (1) Defendant failed to establish under the third prong of State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989), that the trial court violated his federal due process rights by detaining three eyewitnesses to secure their attendance at trial; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to read passages from the witnesses' grand jury transcripts to the jury for substantive purposes pursuant to State v. Whelan, 513 A.2d 86 (Conn. 1986). View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit based on a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a0815 et seq., asserting breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq. The trial court dismissed the claims, determining that the litigation privilege deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the litigation privilege barred Plaintiff's CUTPA-CUIPA claim. View "Dorfman v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgments of the trial court revoking Defendant's probation pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a.32, holding that Defendant's conduct leading to the revocation was not entitled to First Amendment protection.After an escalated emotional confrontation with the staff of his child's preschool the trial court found that the State had met its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant had violated the standard terms of his probation by violating Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-181(a). On appeal, Defendant argued that his remarks warranted First Amendment protection because the State's evidence was insufficient to establish that his remarks constituted a true threat. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in concluding that Defendant's remarks warranted First Amendment protection. View "State v. Taveras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court reversing Defendant's convictions for intentional manslaughter, reckless manslaughter, and criminally negligent operation of a motor vehicle, holding that the appellate court improperly ordered a new trial on all three charges.At the sentencing hearing, the trial court vacated Defendant's intentional manslaughter conviction pursuant to State v. Polanco, 61 A.3d 1084 (Conn. 2013), and rendered judgment on the remaining counts of conviction. The appellate court concluded that Defendant's convictions for reckless manslaughter and criminally negligent operation were legally inconsistent but that neither reckless manslaughter nor criminal negligent operation was inconsistent with intentional manslaughter. The court then remanded the case for a new trial on all charges. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the appellate court should have reinstated Defendant's intentional manslaughter conviction. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of sexual assault in the first and fourth degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection brought pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), objecting to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges to two prospective members of the jury; and (2) his conviction for risk of injury to a child violated constitutional double jeopardy protections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit clear error in determining that Defendant failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury selection process in his case was tainted by purposeful discrimination; and (2) Defendant's conviction for two counts of risk of injury did not violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. View "State v. Jose A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that Defendant's confrontation rights were not violated by the admission into evidence of a codefendant's dual inculpatory statement to a fellow inmate acting at the behest of the state police, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder, home invasion, burglary, and other crimes. The appellate court affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court correctly concluded that the admission of the codefendant's dual inculpatory statement did not violate Defendant's confrontation rights under either the United States or Connecticut constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "State v. Patel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court sustaining Plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford rejecting a zoning amendment approved by the Zoning Board of the City of Stamford, holding that the board of representatives did not have the authority to determine the validity of the petition.Local property owners filed a protest petition opposing the amendment. After determining that the protest petition was valid, the board of representatives considered and rejected the amendment. The trial court sustained Plaintiff's appeal, concluding that the board of representatives did not have the authority to consider whether the petition was valid. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that the board of representatives did not have the authority to determine the validity of the protest petition; but (2) the petition was valid because it contained the requisite number of signatures. View "High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Board of Representatives" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court sustaining Plaintiffs' appeal from a determination of the Board of Representatives of the City of Stamford approving a protest petition that objected to master plan amendments approved by the Planning Board of the City of Stamford, holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs filed an application with the planning board to amend the City of Stamford's master plan. The planning board subsequently filed its own application to amend the city's master plan. The planning board approved both applications with some modifications. After local property owners filed a protest petition the board of representatives determined that the petition was valid and rejected the planning board's approval of the amendments. The trial court sustained Plaintiffs' appeal, holding that even if the board of representatives had the authority to vote on the validity of the protest petition, the vote was not sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the protest petition was invalid as to Plaintiffs' proposed amendment. View "Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of Representatives" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this divorce proceeding, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff brought this divorce action, and the the trial court declared a mistrial. After a second trial Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudiced Plaintiff's credibility and displayed judicial bias and improperly awarded Defendant $65,000 in legal fees and $5000 in sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of plain error did not require reversal in this case; and (2) the trial court properly awarded Defendant attorney's fees and sanctions. View "Ponns Cohen v. Cohen" on Justia Law