Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of various criminal offenses in connection with the shooting of Johnnie Jones. On appeal, Defendant argued that the victim’s conduct in identifying Defendant as the perpetrator was unduly suggestive in violation of his due process rights. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the due process clauses of the Connecticut constitution provide protection against allegedly unduly suggestive eyewitness identification procedures undertaken by a private actor, even in the absence of any improper state action. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) any eyewitness identifications that are not tainted by any unduly suggestive state action do not implicate due process principles unless the identification was so unreliable that its admission deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial; and (2) because Defendant’s claim in this case that the victim’s identification of him as the perpetrator should be suppressed on the ground that it was unduly suggestive did not implicate the state constitution, and because Defendant did not raise the claim at trial, it was not reviewable. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 1993, Defendant was convicted of several offenses. Defendant also pleaded guilty to being a persistent dangerous felony offender and to being a persistent serious felony offender. Judge Espinosa sentenced Defendant to an enhanced sentence. In 2008, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that he was constitutionally entitled to have a jury determine whether extended incarceration would be in the public interest. The trial court dismissed the motion. Defendant subsequently filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that Judge Espinosa had failed to make the required finding that an enhanced sentence would best serve the public interest. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant’s claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on the alternative ground that Judge Espinosa made the necessary finding that imposing an enhanced sentence on Defendant would best serve the public interest. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Under the apparent authority doctrine recognized by the United States Supreme Court, a warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not have such authority. The trial court in this case denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after law enforcement’s warrantless entry of Defendant’s apartment based on the apparent authority doctrine. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted. On appeal, Defendant contended that although the apparent authority doctrine is recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement under the federal constitution, it is inconsistent with Conn. Const. art. I, 7. The Appellate Court concluded that application of the doctrine does not offend the right of Connecticut citizens to be free from unreasonable searches under article first, section 7. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court’s opinion was a proper statement of the applicable law on this issue. View "State v. Buie" on Justia Law

At issue in this criminal case was whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-151(a), which proscribes tampering with a witness, requires the intent to influence a witness’ conduct at an official proceeding. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of tampering with a witness. The Appellate Court affirmed. Defendant argued on appeal that section 53a-151(a) does not prohibit mere attempts to prevent an individual from speaking to the police. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) the statute requires the intent to affect a witness’ conduct at an official proceeding, but a jury may infer this intent from the defendant’s attempt to prevent an individual from giving a statement to the police; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in this case indicating that Defendant believed an official proceeding was about to be instituted and that he threatened an individual with the intent to induce her to withhold testimony at a criminal trial. View "State v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

At issue in this certified appeal was the extent of a law enforcement agency’s disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (Act) with respect to pending criminal investigations. In 1993, the Supreme Court decided Gifford v. Freedom of Information Commission, which held that the police’s disclosure obligations during a pending criminal investigation were governed by the statutory predecessor to Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-215, which required a law enforcement agency to release only police blotter information. The legislature subsequently enacted Public Acts 1994, No. 94-246, 13, which amended the statutory predecessor to section 1-215 to require broader disclosure. In the instant case, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) found that the Department of Public Safety (Department) violated the Act by failing to disclose certain records from a pending criminal case. The trial court sustained the Department’s administrative appeal, and the Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the enactment of Public Act 94-246 did not legislatively overrule the Court’s conclusion in Gifford that, during pending criminal prosecutions, section 1-215 exclusively governs law enforcement agencies’ disclosure obligations under the Act. View "Comm'r of Pub. Safety v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of several offenses in connection with an incident involving Petitioner’s estranged girlfriend. Petitioner later filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that his counsel’s criminal prosecution shortly before Petitioner’s criminal trial constituted a conflict of interest. The habeas court denied Petitioner’s petition. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Petitioner’s claim failed on the merits. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether there was a constitutionally impermissible risk that a jury would attribute the conduct of Petitioner’s trial counsel to Petitioner when his counsel had been acquitted of a dissimilar crime in the same judicial district in which Petitioner faced criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his trial counsel’s performance. View "Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with murder, among other crimes. Defendant, who was indigent, waived his right to appointed counsel and elected to represent himself. Defendant requested that the trial court order funding so that he could retain experts and an investigator in order to present a defense. The parties subsequently entered into a joint stipulation requesting the trial court to reserve questions of law to the Supreme Court regarding the funding issue. The Supreme Court answered (1) an indigent self-represented defendant is constitutionally entitled to expert or investigative services at public expense, provided that he makes a threshold showing that such assistance is reasonably necessary to formulate and present a defense; (2) the trial court does not retain the discretion to authorize public expenditures for any such expert witness or investigator; and (3) the public funds should come from the State’s Office of the Chief Public Defender. View "State v. Wang" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion by improperly precluding Defendant from introducing, on relevancy grounds, evidence of prior sexual conduct that was admissible under the rape shield statute, in violation of Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to confrontation; and (2) the trial court’s preclusion of the evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Shaw" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued that, during sentencing, the trial court deprived him of his due process rights by improperly considering that Defendant decided to proceed to trial rather than accept a plea bargain. The Appellate Court declined to review Defendant’s sentencing claim on the grounds that it was unpreserved and that Defendant had not properly made an “affirmative request” for review in his main brief under State v. Golding. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the requirement that a defendant must “affirmatively request” Golding review in his main brief in order to receive appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims is overruled, and therefore, the Appellate Court improperly declined to review Defendant’s constitutional claims on that ground; (2) Defendant failed to establish that the trial court penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial; but (3) the use of the Court’s supervisory authority was warranted to prevent adverse effects on the public’s perception of the inherent fairness of the criminal justice system that may arise when a trial judge could appear to have considered a defendant’s decision to exercise his right to a trial during sentencing. Remanded for a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Elson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and other crimes. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the trial court as to Defendant’s convictions for the crimes of kidnapping in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, holding that certain evidence relating to the potential impeachment of a key prosecution witness should have been admitted at trial, and that the failure to admit the evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to those counts; and (2) affirmed the trial court in all other respects, holding that the court did not err in its instructions to the jury and that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct. View "State v. Baltas" on Justia Law