Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder, two counts of attempted murder and related crimes, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence four photographs that depicted the bloody interior of a vehicle used to transport two victims shot by Defendant to the hospital.At Defendant's second jury trial on murder, attempted murder, and first degree assault charges, the State admitted into evidence four photographs of the bloody interior of the car that one victim used to drive herself and other victim to the hospital. On appeal, Defendant argued that the four photographs were unduly prejudicial because of their inflammatory nature and that the evidentiary error was harmful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's determination that the photographs were more probative than prejudicial was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Best" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants - the City of New Haven and one of its police officers, Nikki Curry - holding that the trial court incorrectly determined that Defendants were entitled to governmental immunity for discretionary acts pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n(a)(2)(B).On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in determining that Curry's decision to drive her vehicle into oncoming traffic was a discretionary act, rather than a ministerial act, because Curry's actions violated policies imposing ministerial duties regarding the operation of police vehicles, pursuits, and roadblocks. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the trial court improperly granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on discretionary immunity grounds. View "Cole v. City of New Haven" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the habeas court denying Petitioner's petition for certification to appeal from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the habeas court should have declined to issue the writ pursuant to Practice Book 23-24 rather than dismissing the case pursuant to Practice Book 23-29.Acting sua sponte and without providing Petitioner with notice or a hearing, the habeas court dismissed Petitioner's habeas petition pursuant to section 23-29 for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that Petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the habeas court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Petitioner was not in custody for the challenged conviction; but (2) the dismissal of the petition pursuant to Practice Book 23-29 was error. View "Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

In this summary process action for nonpayment of rent under the terms of a commercial lease the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the trial court properly denied Defendants equitable relief from forfeiture of their tenancy.After the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of Plaintiffs, Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their special defense of equitable nonforfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Defendants equitable relief from forfeiture. View "Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi" on Justia Law

In this public interest appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court certifying a class action of servers employed by Chip's Family Restaurant, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.Plaintiff alleged in her class action complaint that Defendants had violated Connecticut wage laws and regulations by deducting a tip credit from her earnings and paying her and other class members below minimum wage for the performance of "nonservice" tasks in connection with their duties as servers. After class discovery, Plaintiff moved for class certification. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying this class action. View "Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the trial court properly rejected Defendants' claim that the doctrine of equitable nonforfeiture should have operated to prevent their eviction in a summary process action for nonpayment of rent under the terms of a commercial lease.After Defendants failed to pay rent, Plaintiffs served a notice to quit on Defendants, thereby terminating the parties' lease. Because Defendants did not subsequently vacate the premises Plaintiffs initiated this summary process action. In response, Defendants raised special defenses, including the special defense of equitable nonforfeiture. The trial court rendered judgment of possession for Plaintiffs. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Defendants equitable relief from forfeiture and granting possession of the premises to Plaintiffs. View "Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of criminal attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation by allowing testimony about the results of a DNA identification analysis without requiring testimony from the individual who generated the DNA profiles; (2) Defendant's claim that his due process rights were violated by the introduction of DNA identification evidence that was allegedly unreliable failed under the third prong of State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989); and (3) there was sufficient evidence to establish Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court granting Plaintiff's motion to vacate an arbitration award and denying Defendant's corresponding application to confirm the award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority or manifestly disregard the law, but the inclusion of issues related to child support in the award was improper.Before the parties were married they executed a premarital agreement. Years later, Plaintiff brought this action to dissolve the marriage, and the parties executed a binding agreement to arbitrate the dissolution action. At issue was the validity of the arbitrator's award dividing the equity in the parties' marital home and assigning responsibility for certain expenses related to child support. The trial court granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the portion of the arbitration award. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court erred in ruling that the arbitrator's award exceed the scope of the parties' submission; (2) any error in distributing the equity in the marital home would not permit a court to vacate the arbitration award; and (3) because Connecticut law prohibits the inclusion of issues related to child support in arbitration awards, this portion of the award is reversed. View "Blondeau v. Baltierra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant's conviction of two counts of violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate Defendant's right against double jeopardy and that any possible instructional error in the trial court's definition of "harassing" was harmless.Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal violation of a standing protective order, one count of threatening in the second degree, and one count of threatening in the second degree. The convictions arose from a series of statements Defendant made to the person protected by the order during a court hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's two convictions for violation of a standing criminal protective order did not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy; and (2) even if this Court were to assume that Defendant's allegations of instructional error were valid, any impropriety was harmless. View "State v. Cody M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming Defendant's judgment of conviction for criminal trespass in the first degree, holding that that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the prerequisites set forth in State v. Whistnant, 427 A.2d 414 (1980), for obtaining a jury instruction on a lesser included offense were not satisfied in this case.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the infraction of simple trespass as a lesser included offense. The Appellate Court disagreed, concluding that the requested instruction failed the third and fourth elements of Whistnant. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Appellate Court did not err in concluding that the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on the infraction of simple trespass. View "State v. Marsala" on Justia Law