Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the trial court's judgment dismissing Mother's post-termination motion to intervene in her biological daughter Riley's juvenile case to obtain an order for visitation, holding that Mother failed to establish the party status necessary to support this Court's jurisdiction to consider her appeal.After the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights she filed a motion for post-termination visitation with Riley, citing this Court's decision in In re Ava W., 248 A.3d 675 (Conn. 2020), as support for the trial court's authority to issue a post termination of parental rights visitation order. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Mother's appeal, holding that, post termination, biological parents lack a legally cognizable interest to support a right to intervene in the juvenile case for the purpose of seeking visitation. View "In re Riley B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Banking revoking Plaintiff's license to serve as a mortgage lender in the state, holding that the Commissioner had the legal authority to suspend and revoke Plaintiff's mortgage lender license.Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal from the Commissioner's decision to revoke Plaintiff's mortgage lender license, arguing that the governing statutory scheme precluded the Department of Banking from suspending its license. The trial court affirmed the Commissioner's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly affirmed the Commissioner's decision. View "1st Alliance Lending, LLC v. Department of Banking" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to the Supreme Court by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in this declaratory judgment action by holding that Defendant's plea of nolo contendere could not be used to trigger a criminal acts exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy governed by Connecticut law.At issue was whether Plaintiff, Allstate Insurance Company, could use Defendant's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of assault in the first degree to trigger a criminal acts exclusion that would bar Plaintiff's coverage of Defendant in a civil action involving the same underlying incident. The district court certified the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that Defendant's plea of nolo contendere could not be used by Plaintiff to establish the applicability of the criminal acts exclusion of the relevant policy. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Tenn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion of the trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss this medical malpractice action on the basis of sovereign immunity, holding that the trial court did not err.James Caverly died while under the medical care of the employees of the John Dempsey Hospital at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Plaintiff, administrator of the decedent's estate, brought a medical malpractice action against the State, doing business as UCONN Health Center/John Dempsey Hospital, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 4-160(b). The State filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that because Plaintiff had received a settlement payment from a joint tortfeasor in connection with the decedent's death. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that section 4-160b(a) applies only to subrogated or assigned claims and not to payments made by joint tortfeasors. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly denied the State's motion to dismiss. View "Caverly v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of assault in the second degree, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict of guilty of assault in the second degree; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s request to cross-examine the victim more extensively regarding her pending civil action against Defendant arising out of the same incident; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a paramedic, testifying as a fact witness, to testify regarding symptoms of a concussion. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, holding that any error in the proceedings below was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting testimony from four lay witnesses identifying Defendant in video surveillance footage; (2) the trial court properly admitted expert testimony regarding an enhancement of the video surveillance footage, and any error in the court's conclusion that defense counsel had opened the door to certain testimony elicited during the prosecutor’s redirect examination of the expert was harmless; (3) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s request for a special credibility instruction as to a witness whom Defendant claimed should have been treated as a jailhouse informant; (4) any error in the trial court's admission of identifications of Defendant made by Nigel Watts was harmless; and (5) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. View "State v. Bruny" on Justia Law