George D. Stoughton

The case involved the defendant Alika McFarlane, who was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit, based on evidence that he fired shots into a crowd during a street fight, injuring one person. On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury instructions permitted legally inconsistent verdicts on the assault and reckless endangerment charges due to their conflicting mental state requirements of intent and recklessness, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the handgun qualified as a pistol under the statute. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the instructions did not allow for inconsistency because the assault charge focused on intent toward a specific victim while the reckless endangerment charge addressed risk to others in the crowd, and that the trial evidence supported a reasonable inference that the firearm's barrel was less than twelve inches long.

criminal lawguns

This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute in which the landlord sought to evict the tenant through summary process after serving a notice to quit. While the eviction action was pending, the tenant obtained a court order restoring him to possession after being locked out by the landlord. The court decided that this restoration order did not create a new tenancy, so no new notice to quit was required, and affirmed the judgment granting possession to the landlord. The reasoning was that the forcible entry and detainer statute restores the status quo without affecting title or creating new rights, and the original notice remained valid.

propertyprocedure

The case involved former spouses Nelson and Suzanne Barber who, after their 1992 divorce, cohabited and formed a partnership to acquire interests in several real properties. Following disagreements, Nelson sued to determine their property interests, and Suzanne counterclaimed for settlement of the partnership account; the parties stipulated to an accounting by a court-appointed auditor under General Statutes § 52-401 et seq. The auditor conducted a hearing, issued a report finding that certain properties were partnership assets while the Hat Shop Hill property was not, and concluded that Nelson owed Suzanne $369,322.51. The trial court rendered judgment on the report, and after denying Nelson's motion to open the judgment (despite his timely but misfiled objection), the appellate court affirmed, holding that the auditor's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, that credibility determinations were properly made, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case concerned Jerome Moore's appeal of his convictions for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and possession with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school. Moore challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless police entry into his apartment after his arrest in the building hallway, arguing that neither he nor his wife validly consented and that the state constitution requires express consent. The trial court found implied consent from Moore's request for clothing and nod toward the apartment, as well as from his wife's conduct, with officers entering only to retrieve clothes. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the consent was valid under the Fourth Amendment and state constitution, the entry was reasonable, and any claim of inadequate implied consent was not preserved.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her infant son Jorden, who suffered severe, unexplained injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome while in the exclusive care of his parents. The trial court granted the petition to terminate the mother's rights after finding that she had failed to comply with specific steps for reunification and that termination was in the child's best interest, citing the child's need for permanency, stability, and mature care that the parents could not provide. On remand from the Supreme Court, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that its findings on best interests were supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record and were not clearly erroneous.

family law

The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, owner of a shopping center, and the defendants, who claimed parking rights on the plaintiff's property under a 1978 recorded mutual grant easement agreement. The plaintiff alleged that the easement was invalid, abandoned, or breached due to zoning violations and changes in use, leading to claims of injurious falsehood, slander of title, trespass, and unjust enrichment after the defendants obtained zoning approval by referencing the easement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on those counts, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the recorded easement remained valid, its boundaries were adequately defined by reference to a survey, there was no evidence of abandonment by predecessors in title, and the defendants had shown no genuine issues of material fact existed.

propertyproceduretorts & liability