The case involved Vinroy Hines, who was convicted after a jury trial of criminal attempt to commit assault in the first degree, two counts of assault in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and criminal violation of a protective order, stemming from an incident in which he attacked his former partner with a bottle and box cutter during a car ride and she escaped by jumping from the moving vehicle. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to provide the jury with the statutory definition of "abduct" in its instruction on the kidnapping charge. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction, holding that the claim of instructional error was not properly preserved because the defendant's request to charge had addressed only the dismissed second-degree kidnapping counts and he did not timely object or request the definition for the first-degree charge. The court further concluded that the defendant had not impliedly waived the claim but that the lack of preservation precluded review.
The case concerned Jason Boone's appeal from a superior court ruling in a proceeding against the Commissioner of Correction. The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the lower court's judgment in a brief per curiam decision. The court offered no separate analysis, relying instead on the record and prior disposition from the trial court.
The case concerned an appeal by Jesus Nieves from a Superior Court decision involving the Commissioner of Correction. The Appellate Court of Connecticut considered the matter after briefs were submitted in May 2012. In a brief per curiam opinion issued by Chief Judge DiPentima and Judges Beach and Bear, the court dismissed the appeal. No further explanation or substantive analysis was provided in the decision.
The case involved a plaintiff who sued her insurance agent and insurer for negligence after an accident left her undercompensated, claiming the agent failed to recommend adequate underinsured motorist coverage despite annual renewals. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligence counts, relying on precedent to conclude that the plaintiff, who knew the coverage amounts, needed to allege fraud or inequitable conduct. On appeal, the court reversed that portion of the judgment, holding that the revised complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action because insurance agents owe a duty to explain uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, its consequences, and to recommend proper amounts based on the client's individual circumstances. The decision emphasized that a motion to strike must be denied if the alleged facts could support negligence, without requiring proof of inequitable conduct.
The case involved Victor Smalls, who was convicted after a jury trial of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit for his role in the shooting death of Edgar Sanchez outside a Norwalk apartment complex. Smalls appealed, claiming the trial court erred in finding probable cause to prosecute him and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder as either a principal or an accessory. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that witness identifications, ballistic evidence recovered from the scene and an apartment, and the defendant's presence with a co-defendant shortly after the shooting provided an adequate basis for both the probable cause determination and the jury's verdict.
The case involved Vernon Leftridge's appeal from a trial court order increasing his child support obligation from $50 to $150 per week. The plaintiff argued that he had not been properly served with the motion to modify, depriving him of notice and an opportunity to be heard at the September 2010 hearing. The Appellate Court agreed, holding that due process requires actual or constructive notice to all parties before adjudicating conflicting interests, and that the record showed deficiencies in service and notification that had previously led a family support magistrate to vacate an earlier modification order. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's judgment modifying the support obligation. The topics are family law and procedure.