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

In Tuccio v. Garamella, the plaintiffs sued an attorney for legal malpractice, and after the plaintiffs failed to timely respond to the defendant's interrogatories and requests for production despite extensions, the trial court granted a nonsuit as a discovery sanction. The appellate court reversed the judgment of nonsuit and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the sanction was an abuse of discretion. The court reasoned that there was no evidence or finding of willful or bad-faith noncompliance, the only claimed prejudice was the pendency of the lawsuit itself, and the policy favoring resolution of cases on the merits required a less severe sanction given the circumstances, including the plaintiffs' eventual compliance shortly after the nonsuit.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the conviction of Na’im B. for one count of risk of injury to a child after his four-month-old son suffered third-degree burns from a hair straightener. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court failed to disclose all relevant material from a Department of Children and Families file after in camera review, improperly precluded testimony from a department investigator regarding statements by the victim's half-brother, and improperly precluded evidence of an earlier referral regarding the victim's mother. The appellate court reviewed the sealed records and found no additional exculpatory material had been withheld, determined the proffered testimony was inadmissible hearsay not offered to prove its truth and the other evidence lacked relevance to third-party culpability, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

In this habeas corpus case, Martin Conde challenged the dismissal of his petition alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the case adequately, retain an investigator, and call or cross-examine witnesses in his underlying convictions for murder as an accessory and conspiracy to commit murder. The habeas court dismissed the ineffective assistance claims under the Strickland v. Washington standard, finding that counsel's performance was not deficient, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the petitioner failed to show he informed counsel of helpful witnesses, that additional investigation would have benefited the defense, or that counsel's strategic decisions were unreasonable rather than sound trial strategy. The judgment dismissing the petition (except for a separate sentence review claim) was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the state charging a landlord with criminal lockout under General Statutes § 53a-214 after allegedly depriving a tenant of access to a dwelling unit without a court order. The trial court dismissed the information based on the defendant's claim that the premises had been abandoned by the tenant. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, holding that because material facts regarding abandonment were disputed between the parties' memoranda, due process required an evidentiary hearing to resolve them rather than relying on unadmitted assertions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of defendant Antonio W. after a jury trial on three counts of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of risk of injury to a child, based on evidence that he assaulted his six-year-old female cousin over a two-week period. The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court failed to hold a charging conference on the record, improperly admitted hearsay testimony from a school nurse under the medical exception, failed to instruct the jury on constancy of accusation, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, determining that the charging conference claim was unpreserved and not plain error, the hearsay testimony was properly admitted, the constancy claim was unpreserved, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved Donald Moody's appeal from the denial of certification to appeal the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, in which he alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during his second criminal trial on charges of murder and first-degree assault stemming from a 1994 shooting in New Haven. Moody claimed counsel failed to introduce available defense evidence, request a jury instruction on defense of others, and adequately address potential jury bias from exposure to extraneous material. The habeas court found that Moody had not proven deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice, and it denied certification to appeal. On review, the appellate court held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion, as the claims did not raise issues debatable among jurists of reason or warrant further review, and it dismissed the appeal. The decision rested on the established standard requiring both deficient performance and prejudice to establish ineffective assistance, with deference to counsel's strategic choices.

criminal lawprocedure

In Mankus v. Mankus, the plaintiff appealed a workers' compensation review board decision that affirmed the commissioner's order opening a 1997 finding and award and dismissing his compensation claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after determining there was no employment relationship with the alleged employer, his brother. The case arose from a 1995 ladder fall injury at a renovation project, where the Second Injury Fund, after paying benefits for years, located evidence that the plaintiff was not employed by the brother and moved to open the award and dismiss. The court affirmed, holding that subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time regardless of the alleged employer's actions or statutory deadlines for contesting liability, that the evidence supported the finding of no employment relationship, and that the plaintiff's motion to submit additional evidence failed to demonstrate materiality.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a petition by the commissioner of children and families to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father of infant Jorden R. after the child suffered serious head and brain injuries consistent with shaken baby syndrome while in the parents' care on July 24, 2005. The trial court granted the petition as to the mother, finding that she had failed to achieve sufficient rehabilitation under General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (C) and that termination was in the child's best interest. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the termination judgment in part as to the mother, holding that certain findings were clearly erroneous and that the trial court had improperly excluded expert testimony on the mother's rehabilitation and the lack of reunification efforts by the department. The court noted that the evidence did not support a finding that the mother was directly responsible for the injury and that counseling records showed her engagement in services.

family lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Linda Howard for larceny in the first and second degrees after she used her position as caretaker for an elderly man to transfer over $300,000 from his accounts to herself and relatives using his signature stamp. Howard appealed the judgment, claiming error in the trial court's exclusion of a document she presented as the victim's statement authorizing the transfers and expressing gratitude. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the document constituted inadmissible hearsay that did not meet the state of mind exception because it was retrospective rather than present or forward-looking and was unreliable, and that alternative claims for admission were not raised below or failed to address all grounds for exclusion.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Christopher Montanaro and Laurie Anne Deilus sued the town of Wilton after it indicated it would not issue a zoning permit for their property because access depended on Old 2 Rod Highway, which they claimed was a public road; their complaint sought both a judicial declaration that the road was public and an order directing issuance of the permit. The trial court dismissed the count against the town for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by applying for the permit first. The appellate court reversed, holding that the second count contained two distinct requests for relief and that the trial court had jurisdiction to decide whether the road qualified as a public highway even if it lacked jurisdiction over the permit request itself. The court reasoned that the absence of jurisdiction over one form of relief in a count does not require dismissal of the entire count when the other claim is independently justiciable.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Raymond Bagley, who was convicted by a jury of risk of injury to a child and sexual assault in the fourth degree after evidence showed he had sexual contact with a minor victim. Bagley argued on appeal that the trial court erred in determining he was competent to stand trial, claiming he could not rationally understand the proceedings or assist in his defense due to his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Bagley competent. Multiple competency evaluations, including the most recent one from January 2004, concluded that Bagley was able to understand the charges and assist in his defense if he chose to, and that his refusal to communicate was a deliberate choice rather than a result of psychiatric impairment, consistent with the Dusky standard as codified in state law.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved pro se plaintiffs appealing a trial court judgment against them on claims including entry and detainer under General Statutes § 47a-43 et seq., tenancy status, entitlement to a constructive trust on a family home, civil theft of personal property under § 52-564, and breach of a stipulation for access to belongings. The plaintiffs had resided in the home owned by defendant Crowell for thirty years but left in July 2000 after being directed to move out, later renting elsewhere, and found the locks changed with some items relocated and a bulldozer sold upon returning in September 2000. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the trial court's findings—that the plaintiffs lacked actual possession and tenant status on the relevant date, among other determinations—were not clearly erroneous and that the legal conclusions followed from the evidence of their departure and non-exclusive use of the premises.

property

The case involved a tenant who fell on icy steps outside another tenant's apartment and sued the landlords for breach of contract under the leases (her own or as a third-party beneficiary) plus a CUTPA violation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both counts, and the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the contract claim was in substance a negligence action barred by the statute of limitations, while the CUTPA claim failed because the plaintiff lacked a qualifying business relationship with the defendants regarding the property where the fall occurred.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Mark Parisi appealing the dismissal of his workers' compensation claim against Yale University for multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome allegedly caused by chemical exposures at work. The court affirmed the board's decision to dismiss the claim. The reasoning was that there was insufficient evidence linking the plaintiff's condition to his employment, as his symptoms were triggered by various non-work-related exposures, and no specific work chemicals were shown to cause it. Additionally, the admission of certain medical testimony did not constitute unfair surprise since the employer had consistently denied causation.

labor & employmentprocedure