Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that there was no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting testimony implicating him in the murder under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule and improperly admitted certain state of mind evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) even if the trial court incorrectly admitted the evidence under the coconspirator hearsay exception, the jury's verdict wasn't substantially affected by any such error; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the victim's state of mind was relevant as evidence of the deteriorating nature of his relationship with Defendant's gang from which the jury could reasonably infer Defendant's motive to kill him. View "State v. Ayala" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff's claim that Defendants' negligent disposal of cigarettes inside an abandoned, privately owned mill in the town ignited a fire that destroyed both the mill and a sewage line in the basement of the mill, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the alternative liability doctrine for the purpose of proving its case at trial.In granting summary judgment, the trial court found that Plaintiff, Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency, as subrogee of its insured, the town of Somers, could not establish which of the defendants' cigarettes had sparked the blaze and therefore could not establish causation. In so holding, the trial court refused Plaintiff's request that it adopt the alternative liability doctrine, as set forth in section 433 B(3) of the Restatement (Second). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) when three threshold requirements have been met, the alternative liability doctrine should be recognized as a limited exception to the general rule that the plaintiff in a negligence action must prove that each of the defendants caused the plaintiff's harm; and (2) the three requirements for application of the doctrine were met in this case. View "Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court upholding Defendant's convictions for several offenses stemming from the sexual assault of his minor daughter, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for three counts of criminal violation of a restraining order and that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Defendant had "knowledge of the terms of the order" because the court expressly instructed Defendant to limit contact with the children and Defendant heard Spanish language translations of the terms of the order; and (2) the prosecutor's comments and questions were not improper. View "State v. Elmer G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court concluding that Appellant's claim that his conviction violated the corpus delicti rule was unreviewable on appeal, holding that unpreserved corpus delicti claims are reviewable on appeal.Defendant was convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child arising from two alleged incidents of sexual misconduct. Defendant appealed, arguing that the only evidence that he committed the second alleged act of misconduct were statements he made to the police and, therefore, that his second conviction violated the corpus delicti rule. Defendant, however, did not raise the corpus delicti issue or challenge the admissibility of his statements at trial. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that corpus delicti is an evidentiary rule that must be raised at trial to be reviewable on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed for the reasons set forth in a companion case decided today, State v. Leniart, __ A.3d __ (2019), holding that Defendant's corpus delicti claim was reviewable on appeal. View "State v. Robert H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing Defendant's conviction for murder and three counts of capital felony and remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the Appellate Court erred in concluding that a videotape and expert testimony were improperly excluded during trial.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant's corpus delicti claim was reviewable on appeal because it was not merely evidentiary, but the Appellate Court properly concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the videotape was not harmless; and (3) the Appellate Court erred in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in precluding the expert testimony proffered by Defendant. View "State v. Leniart" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress action the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment affirming the trial court's judgment denying Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for Plaintiff.This action stemmed from Defendant's handling of Plaintiff's homeowner's insurance claim. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff on both counts. Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, renewing its motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence presented during Plaintiff's case-in-chief. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant contended that the so-called waiver rule - which provides that a defendant waives the right to appeal the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case by opting to introduce evidence in its own behalf - is inapplicable to civil cases in which a trial court reserves decision on a motion for directed verdict. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury's verdict must consider all of the evidence considered by the jury returning the verdict, not just the evidence presented in the plaintiff's case-in-chief. View "Riley v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying the City of Bridgeport's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's complaint that the City was negligent by failing to follow a local emergency service plan and permitting a highway defect to exist, namely, snow, holding that the City was immune for its actions pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 28-13.The trial court rejected the City's argument that this action was barred by common-law governmental immunity and that the City could not invoke the protections of section 28-13 immunity because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the City was actively experiencing a civil preparedness emergency at the time of the death in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an appealable final judgment existed; and (2) there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the applicability of section 28-13, and therefore, the trial court should have granted summary judgment. View "Sena v. American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting motions to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims for vexatious litigation and unfair and deceptive business acts or practices during Plaintiff's underlying bankruptcy proceeding, holding that the trial court properly dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were preempted by federal bankruptcy law.Plaintiff, who had previously filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, brought this action asserting claims of vexatious litigation and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 42-110a et seq. The trial court dismissed the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Congress implicitly preempted state law actions by occupying the field of bankruptcy law and that, in the field of law, the federal interest is so dominant that federal law is assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the subject. View "Metcalf v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

In this dissolution of marriage action, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the decision of the trial court awarding appellate attorney's fees to Plaintiff under the bad faith exception to the American rule, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of the fees.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the appellate court did not accord the proper level of deference in concluding that the trial court's findings lacked sufficient specificity. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the appellate court with direction to affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding Plaintiff $30,000 in attorney's fees. View "Lederle v. Spivey" on Justia Law

In this medical negligence action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court rendered in accordance with the court's granting of Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, holding that the Court could not reach the merits of Plaintiff's claim that Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-190a is unconstitutional.Plaintiff brought this case against the State and numerous superior court judges, a psychiatrist and his employer, and business entities after his wife committed suicide. The trial court granted judgment for Defendants. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that section 52-190a, which requires a plaintiff to append a good faith certificate and supporting opinion letter to the complaint in cases of medical negligence, is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff failed to challenge the trial court's threshold conclusions that his claims against Defendants were barred by, among other things, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, this Court could not address the single substantive issue that Plaintiff raised and that the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. View "Traylor v. State" on Justia Law