Supreme Court of Connecticut

The court held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury not to consider the mere fact of the victim’s delayed disclosure because the defense had challenged her credibility on that basis, but concluded the nonconstitutional error was harmless.

The appellate court dismissed the writ of error, holding that the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to reopen the criminal case or to reconsider a prior interlocutory order after the defendant’s acquittal.

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court's admission of the detective's limited expert testimony defining "grooming" was harmless error and that the trial court's failure to rule on the defendant's motion for a new trial before sentencing did not constitute plain error…

The appellate court held that the appeal was not moot despite the child reaching majority, because the petition for de facto parentage was timely filed and the relief survives the child's adulthood.

The appellate court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable, so the state need not prove the provocation exception, and that the prosecutor's remarks about a witness's familial relationship did…

The court affirmed the appellate court, holding that the trial judge did not violate the defendant's right to a jury poll because the jury had been discharged before the juror's remark, and that there was no constitutional violation of the right to a unanimous verdict.

The court dismissed the certified appeal as moot because legislation cancelled the plaintiff's applications, diverted the program's remaining funds, and repealed the governing program, leaving no practical relief available through mandamus.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining Lasa Extract's administrative appeal and holding that the cultivation and processing of cannabis at its Suffield facility was a lawful continuation of the property's existing legal nonconforming use (historically tobacco processing, later…

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment upholding the denial of the defendant's motion for sentence modification to time served under General Statutes § 53a-39(a), holding that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in considering the Board of Pardons and Paroles' prior denials of…

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the defendant's murder conviction and ordered a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a Porter hearing on the reliability of primer gunshot residue (pGSR) evidence, resting its denial solely on the methodology's well-established…

The court held that a municipal tax assessor satisfies the statutory requirement to provide a rental-income information form by mailing it to the property owner's last known address, even if the owner does not actually receive it.

The court held that favorable treatment given to a cooperating witness, without more, does not establish an underlying promise of leniency, but clarified that the duty to correct misleading testimony extends to implied, unwritten, or tacit cooperation agreements.

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a second judgment of strict foreclosure, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the defendants Underwood Towers Limited Partnership and CDC Management Corporation from relitigating their claim that the substitute plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose, because that…

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court's judgment ordering a new criminal trial for the petitioner, who claimed his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the state's cell site location information (CSLI) evidence, particularly a GeoTime time-lapse video depicting his…

In a per curiam order spanning two dockets, the Supreme Court of Connecticut imposed sanctions on Attorney Ian G. Gottlieb and his firm, GLG Law, LLC, for filing public interest appeal applications and briefs containing approximately seven hallucinated—fabricated or inaccurately generated—citations introduced when…

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court incorrectly struck all of counts two through six of the plaintiff's wrongful death complaint as medical malpractice: certain allegations—failure to control the patient, failure to warn the identifiable victim, and premature discharge when the fifteen-day…

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for third-degree sexual assault and third-degree assault of an elderly person, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in giving a consciousness of guilt instruction built on the defendant's equivocal statements to his employer — an…

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Antoine Keaton's convictions for murder and criminal possession of a firearm. It held that his confrontation clause challenge to a computer-synchronized compilation of street-camera footage failed under State v.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' administrative appeal challenging a zoning permit authorizing interior renovations to Grace Farms Foundation's operations center in New Canaan.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed a judgment reinstating the forest land classification of the plaintiffs' 22.53-acre Mansfield property, holding that the town assessor lacked statutory authority to terminate the classification even though the property never met the twenty-five acre minimum because the…

The court held that the trial court improperly allowed the child's adoption to proceed before resolving the foster parents' timely motion to open the appointment of the commissioner as statutory parent.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the trial court committed plain error by omitting the no adverse inference instruction required by General Statutes § 54-84 (b) from its final jury instructions, even though the instruction had been given to the venire panels and in the preliminary instructions, because the…

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defense's midtrial request to present a previously undisclosed handwriting expert. The late request substantially departed from the defense's disclosure obligations, was not supported by good cause because the defense could have…

The court affirmed the denial of the petitioner's second habeas petition, holding that the habeas court applied the correct standard when evaluating an expert's credibility and the prejudice component of the ineffective-assistance claim.

The court held that the trial court properly granted the Middletown Fair Rent Commission permissive intervention in the landlord's summary process action. The court concluded that the fair rent and summary process proceedings involved overlapping issues and that the commission had a substantial institutional interest…

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and upheld the denial of his motion to suppress cell phone records. It held that the warrant was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular despite not specifying a time zone, and that suppression of four additional hours of records produced by the provider…

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that his unpreserved challenge to the jury instruction concerning the victim’s delayed reporting was not reviewable because it did not allege a constitutional violation.

The court held that the out-of-state placement provision creates a rebuttable presumption favoring in-state placement, which the party seeking an out-of-state placement must overcome by proving good cause by a preponderance of the evidence.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish through competent and sufficiently clear secondary evidence that it owned the debt underlying the mortgage. Because the affidavits supporting summary judgment lacked an adequate personal-knowledge foundation, contained conclusory assertions, and did not explain how…

The court held that PURA's annual renewable portfolio standards proceeding was statutorily uncontested, so its decision was not a final decision reviewable under the administrative appeal provision.

The court held that the notice to quit did not strictly comply with the statutory requirement because it inaccurately identified the plaintiff as acting as executor even though she individually owned the property.

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that admitting the eyewitness’s in-court identification did not violate either federal or state due process. Under the federal standard, the state established by clear and convincing evidence that the witness’s identification rested on an independent, untainted…

The court held that a postjudgment motion to modify custody is a short calendar matter governed by Practice Book § 11-19, so the plaintiff waived any timeliness challenge by failing to seek reassignment within the prescribed period.

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court applied the correct burden and balancing standard when joining the two cases for trial. The court also held that the expert’s answers to hypothetical questions about grooming were permissible because they addressed general behavioral patterns…

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that his claim challenging the trial court's authority to sever the jointly tried charges was unpreserved because he never moved for severance.

The court affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reject his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the unpreserved challenges to the intent instructions did not satisfy the plain-error standard because the instructions…

The court held that the defendant's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid even though the plea canvass did not separately identify and obtain waivers of the rights to a jury trial, confrontation, and against self-incrimination.

The court affirmed dismissal of the utility’s administrative appeal because the challenged agency findings and order were not determinations that state law required PURA to make after an opportunity for a hearing.

The court affirmed the Appellate Court's reversal of the trial judgment because the trial court found only that Wendy was regarded as having a disability, which the commission conceded was insufficient to support a failure-to-accommodate claim.

The court held that the defendant's appeal was not moot because disclosure of the appraisal could still affect the valuation of the marital home and the resulting financial orders, notwithstanding the home's later sale.