Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Plaintiffs' motion to set aside the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants, holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the doctrine of acceptable alternatives, but the error was harmless, and Plaintiffs' request that the Court abolish the acceptable alternatives doctrine was denied.On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury by including a charge on the acceptable alternatives doctrine because no evidence supported the charge. Alternatively, Plaintiffs asked the Court to abolish the acceptable alternatives doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish that Defendants had breached the standard of care, holding (1) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the acceptable alternatives charge, but this instructional error was harmless; and (2) the trial court did not improperly limit Plaintiffs' allegations regarding breach of the standard of care in responding to the jury's request for clarification of the jury instructions. View "Kos v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court affirming Defendant's conviction of one count of murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and four counts of assault in the first degree, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State's late disclosed expert witness to testify without first granting Defendant a reasonable continuance to obtain his own expert, and the error was harmful.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State's expert witness on cell site location information (CSLI) to testify as to what that information revealed about the location of Defendant during the time of the crimes because the State disclosed the expert only one week before evidence started. Defendant argued in the alternative that the court abused its discretion by denying his related motion for a continuance to obtain his own CSLI expert. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's decision to permit the State's late disclosed expert witness to testify was an abuse of discretion in the absence of affording Defendant a reasonable continuance to obtain his own expert; and (2) the error was harmful, and Defendant was entitled to a new trial. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of assault in the first degree, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions seeking public funds to pay for a DNA expert to assist in his defense and to exclude certain evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court (1) abused its discretion and violated his federal and state constitutional rights when it denied his motion for funds for a DNA expert to assist in his defense, and (2) abused its discretion when it denied his motion in limine seeking to preclude certain evidence of the victim's confidence in her identification of Defendant when presented with a photographic array by the police. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly denied Defendant's motion for costs to pay for expenses associated with procuring the DNA expert; and (2) did not abuse it discretion in denying Defendant's motion in limine seeking to preclude evidence of the victim's post identification confidence in her identification of Defendant as her attacker. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court concluding that a motor vehicle accident occurred on the last day of the thirty-day limitation period of Conn. Gen. Stat. 14-60(a) because the day during which Defendant loaned the license plate displayed on one of the vehicles involved in the accident was not included in the calculation of the thirty-day period, holding that the term "days" means a full calendar day rather than a fraction of a day.Plaintiffs each commenced an action against Defendant, a motor vehicle dealer, following a fatal vehicle accident, alleging that Defendant had loaned the dealer plates in violation of section 14-60. The trial court rendered judgment in each case for Defendant, concluding that the accident occurred on the thirtieth day after Defendant loaned the plate, within the thirty-day time limit of section 14-60(a). The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the appellate court correctly excluded the date of the loan from the computation of the thirty-day period under section 14-60(a); and (2) therefore, the accident occurred within the thirty-day limitation period of section 14-60(a). View "Rutter v. Janis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and related crimes, holding that any violation of Defendant's right to confrontation was harmless and that the trial court's third-party culpability instruction was sufficient.Defendant's convictions arose from a shooting on a crowded street in which a fifteen-year-old boy died and two individuals were seriously injured. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) as to Defendant's argument that the trial court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of two witnesses identifying Defendant as the shooter, Defendant failed to preserve his hearsay objection, and even if the admission of the out-of-court identifications violated Defendant's right to confrontation, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court's third-party culpability instruction was sufficient despite the fact that the instruction omitted certain names. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming Defendant's conviction of felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to any review of his unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly failed to conduct a hearing before admitting certain evidence.Specifically, on appeal Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to conduct a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997), before admitting expert testimony regarding cell phone data and corresponding cell tower coverage maps. The Appellate Court held that Defendant's claim was unpreserved and unreviewable under State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989), because it was evidentiary, not constitutional, in nature. The court further declined to review the claim under the plain error doctrine or under its supervisory authority over the administration of justice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to establish that any evidentiary error occurred, Defendant was not entitled to review of his unpreserved claim. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that Petitioner's federal immigration detention did not satisfy the "custody" requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-466(a).Petitioner, who was not a United States citizen, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of marijuana. After his release, Petitioner traveled outside the United States, was denied reentry, and was ordered removed on the basis of the possession of marijuana conviction. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his Connecticut conviction, arguing that his guilty plea was involuntary. The habeas court denied the petition. The Appellate Court affirmed on the alternative ground that Petitioner was not in custody pursuant to section 52-466(a)(1) at the time he filed his habeas petition and, therefore, that the habeas court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court (1) improperly declined to review Petitioner's response to the alternative ground for affirmance advanced by the Commissioner of Correction, but the error was harmless; and (2) the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jobe v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dissolving Plaintiff's marriage to Defendant, holding that the trial court did not err.After a dissolution trial, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay alimony to Plaintiff in the amount of $350,000 per year and awarded Plaintiff $1,326,849, which represented one-third of the parties' aggregate net worth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly concluded that the parties’ purported agreement to revoke the postnuptial agreement was unenforceable and that the parties' postnuptial agreement was enforceable; and (2) correctly awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their minor children with the defendant having final decision-making authority. View "Zhou v. Zhang" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying certain defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity.Plaintiffs, the parents of four school-age children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, brought this action seeking judgment from the City of Norwalk's Board of Education and three of its members. Plaintiffs alleged that the negligent hiring and supervision of Stacy Lore, who was hired to provide autism related services to children in the school district, proximately caused them to suffer permanent and ongoing injuries and losses. The Board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, claiming that the doctrine of sovereign immunity mandated dismissal of the claims. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed but on other grounds, holding (1) the trial court improperly dismissed this action on the ground that Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies; and (2) the Board and its members were not entitled to sovereign immunity because they were acting under the control of, and as an agent of, the municipality rather than the state. View "Graham v. Friedlander" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, sua sponte, Petitioner's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus without first acting on Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel and providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard, holding that the Appellate Court correctly found that Petitioner was not entitled to the appointment of counsel, notice or a hearing under the circumstances but used the incorrect analysis to arrive at that conclusion.The habeas court dismissed Petitioner's petition pursuant to Practice Book 23-29(1) for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was apparent, on the face of the petition, that Petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case with direction to decline to issue the writ of habeas corpus, holding that the habeas court should have declined to issue the writ pursuant to Practice Book 23-24(a)(1) rather than dismissing the case pursuant to Practice Book 23-29(1). View "Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law