Alexandra D. Dipentima

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

This case was an appeal by Patrick Walsh from a superior court ruling involving the Commissioner of Correction. The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in a per curiam decision by a three-judge panel, dismissed the appeal. No additional reasoning or analysis was provided in the court's opinion beyond the dismissal itself. The matter had been argued in May 2012 and decided the following month.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Ben B. Omar for multiple narcotics-related offenses, including possession and sale of narcotics with intent to sell near a school zone. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his challenges for cause to three potential jurors, forcing him to use peremptory challenges, and that prosecutorial impropriety denied him a fair trial. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury selection claims were not reviewable because the defendant did not request additional peremptory challenges after exhausting his, and that the prosecutorial claims either lacked merit or were unreviewable evidentiary issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved property owners appealing the Department of Environmental Protection commissioner's declaratory ruling, which upheld a notice of violation for an unauthorized dock and boardwalk on waterfront property and denied their application for a certificate of permission under General Statutes § 22a-363b (a). The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, and the appellate court affirmed that judgment. The court found that the structures did not qualify for the certificate because aerial photographs and other evidence showed they had not been continuously maintained in their original pre-1939 form, had fallen into disrepair multiple times including after Hurricane Gloria in 1985, and had been significantly rebuilt or altered without required permits. The ruling rejected claims that the department's interpretation of the statute was improper, that equitable estoppel applied, or that littoral rights were violated, concluding that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's determinations.

environmentproperty

In this marital dissolution appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's ruling that marital assets must be valued as of the May 9, 2008 date the dissolution decree was entered, rather than a later date. The defendant argued that his motion for reconsideration of certain financial orders, along with the plaintiff's motion for clarification of the asset division, meant the judgment did not become final until the court ruled on the reconsideration motion in December 2008. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the original decree date remained the proper valuation point because the motions did not seek reconsideration of the asset division order itself and did not reopen or invalidate the finality of the underlying judgment. The core reasoning was that motions limited to clarification preserve the original judgment date, and the defendant's own conduct and the nature of the filings supported treating May 9 as the operative date.

family lawprocedure

This case was a summary process eviction action in which the plaintiff, as conservator of Edith Fryer's estate, sought possession of a residence after the defendants' permission to occupy it had ended. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' right or privilege to occupy the premises had terminated under General Statutes § 47a-23(a)(3). On appeal, the defendants raised claims including denial of a jury trial, denial of motions to dismiss and strike, inability to call witnesses, insufficient proof, and improper substitution of a party; the appellate court rejected each claim. The court held there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in summary process actions, the plaintiff's evidence was credible and sufficient, and the substitution complied with the survival statute. It therefore affirmed the eviction judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned PMG Land Associates' appeal from the trial court's dismissal of its complaint against Harbour Landing Condominium Association and individual defendants, which asserted claims of vexatious litigation and tortious interference with business expectancies arising from prior disputes over prescriptive easements on development parcels and related litigation. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds under General Statutes § 52-577, finding the action untimely and not saved by the accidental failure of suit statute in § 52-592. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that count three for tortious interference alleged ongoing conduct in 2005 and 2006 that fell within the three-year limitations period, so the claim could proceed without reliance on the savings statute, while the motion to dismiss was properly entertained despite the plaintiff's untimely objection.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a self-represented prison inmate appealing the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he claimed that his placement on administrative segregation violated due process and that he was improperly denied the ability to earn statutory good time credits and seven-day work week credits during that time, particularly after a related disciplinary report for possessing escape-related materials was withdrawn pursuant to prior settlements. The habeas court denied the petition, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal after concluding that the petitioner failed to show an abuse of discretion in the denial of certification. The court reasoned that inmates have no constitutional right to any particular classification status and that the award of good time credits is discretionary rather than a protected liberty interest, with the prior settlements not requiring restoration of the credits lost due to administrative segregation.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a defendant, William C., convicted in 2005 of crimes including sexual assault in a spousal relationship and related offenses, who later filed a writ of error coram nobis in 2010 asserting new evidence of innocence, malicious prosecution, and ineffective assistance of counsel after his direct appeal and habeas corpus petition were unsuccessful. The trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss the writ, ruling it lacked jurisdiction because the writ was filed more than three years after the 2005 judgment. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that precedent limits writs of error coram nobis to three years from judgment and that no statutory or constitutional right to appointed counsel exists in this collateral civil proceeding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of defendant Edward M. after a jury trial on multiple counts of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, based on evidence that he repeatedly sexually abused his biological daughter over an 18-month period starting when she was about eight years old. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the victim's mother and presentation of evidence from his girlfriend regarding potential bias or motive, that the prosecutor committed improprieties denying him a fair trial, and alternatively seeking reversal under supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings restricting questions about a specific past incident or related testimony, and that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments did not constitute improprieties or deprive the defendant of due process. The court reviewed the record and found the restrictions were proper exercises of discretion that did not infringe constitutional rights to confrontation or present a defense.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

This case involved death-sentenced petitioners Hayes, Ashby, and Campbell who joined a consolidated habeas corpus action originally contemplated in State v. Reynolds to litigate claims that Connecticut's death penalty was imposed in a racially discriminatory manner. The petitioners sought a stay of proceedings, a two-year continuance to update data through their direct appeals, or a separate consolidated action; the habeas court denied the first two requests but allowed a second action. The commissioner moved to dismiss their appeals from those denials, arguing lack of a final judgment. The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the orders were not final judgments under the second prong of Curcio because no substantive right was irretrievably lost and the petitioners could still fully litigate their claims in the available proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In St. Germain v. St. Germain, two brothers disputed an oral agreement for the sale of their jointly owned real property in Waterbury, Connecticut. The plaintiff conveyed his interest via quitclaim deed in 1999 in exchange for payment upon his retirement in 2005, but the defendant refused to pay the $29,243.47 amount, leading to a breach of contract lawsuit; the defendant raised a statute of frauds defense and filed a counterclaim alleging assault and other torts from a 2007 altercation. The trial court found that equitable estoppel, based on part performance, barred the statute of frauds defense, ruled for the plaintiff on the contract claim, and rejected the counterclaim and related defenses. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's factual findings on contract formation and estoppel were not clearly erroneous and that its legal conclusions were supported by the record.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a former Hartford police officer, Edwin Garcia, who resigned after more than 16 years of service with 80 accumulated sick days and later sought to exchange those days for increased pension benefits once he reached the 20-year anniversary of his hire date. He filed suit requesting writs of mandamus to compel the city and pension commission to allow the exchange and to certify his sick time, plus damages, after the requests were denied under the collective bargaining agreement. The trial court denied relief, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the agreement's terms limited eligibility for the sick-time exchange to employees who qualified for normal retirement benefits after 20 years of continuous service, which the plaintiff had not completed.

labor & employment

The case involved the conviction of Ernesto P. for multiple sexual offenses against an eleven-year-old girl, including sexual assault by threat of force, sexual assault with a victim under thirteen, risk of injury to a child, possession of child pornography, and employing a minor in an obscene performance. The defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove he threatened the use of force or employed a minor in an obscene performance. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the jury could reasonably infer from the victim's testimony and other evidence that the defendant had threatened harm and that the photographs taken satisfied the elements of the obscene performance charge.

criminal law

The case involved Thomas Germain, who operates a title search company, appealing the freedom of information commission's dismissal of his complaint against the town of Manchester for refusing to let him use a portable flatbed scanner to copy public land records. The commission and trial court interpreted General Statutes § 1-212 (g) as limiting permitted scanners to hand-held devices that are dragged across the page, excluding flatbed scanners. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statute's language is plain and unambiguous in requiring hand-held scanners under their common meaning, without need for further interpretive analysis.

free speechprocedure