Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled nolo contendere to possession of narcotics with intent to sell to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school, and possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress with respect to the narcotics and handgun found in a plastic bag inside the trunk of his vehicle. Specifically, Defendant argued that the search of bags inside the trunk of his vehicle could not be conducted within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement under the Connecticut constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state constitution does not prohibit the warrantless search of a closed container located in the trunk of a vehicle conducted during an otherwise constitutional warrantless search of a vehicle. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Upon responding to a 911 call from a tenant of a rooming house reporting a disturbance involving a gun, police officers entered an unlocked attic space in the house and retrieved marijuana and a gun. After a jury trial, Defendant, who resided in a room on the third floor of the house, was convicted of attempt to commit criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of a pistol, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police as products of an unlawful search, claiming he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic. The appellate court affirmed, holding that, because of Defendant’s lack of control over the access of others to the attic, Defendant did not have an expectation of privacy in that space that society would recognize as reasonable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate court properly resolved the issue by virtue of its well-reasoned decision. View "State v. Pierre" on Justia Law

Upon following up on complaints from Defendant’s neighbor relating to Defendant’s keeping of animals in his residence, a police officer concluded that a “welfare check” was necessary and made a warrantless entry into Defendant’s home. Defendant subsequently entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of cruelty to animals. Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress on the ground that the warrantless entry was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the evidence did not permit a finding that the police reasonably believed that a warrantless entry was necessary to help a person inside the dwelling who was in immediate need of assistance. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances present in this case, a police officer reasonably would have believed that an emergency existed inside Defendant’s home. View "State v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing the crime of robbery in the first degree. In its information charging Defendant, the state alleged that Defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. During trial, however, the court instructed the jury that Defendant could be found guilty if all other elements of the crime had been proven and if any person participating in the commission of the crime possessed a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could find him guilty under a theory of liability not set forth in the State’s information. Because Defendant did not preserve his claim for appellate review by objecting to the jury instruction, he sought review under State v. Golding. The appellate court declined to review Defendant’s claim on appeal, concluding that Defendant had implicitly waived any objection to the jury instructions under the rule set forth in State v. Kitchens. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not implicitly waive his claim because he was never provided with the court’s actual proposed charge and consequently did not have a meaningful opportunity to review the instructions. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm as an accessory, among other crimes. The convictions arose from a shooting that occurred during an altercation in a housing complex. The appellate court reversed the manslaughter conviction, concluding that insufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Defendant acted as an accessory by intentionally aiding Donald Wilson, the person who fired the fatal shots. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record contained insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant assisted Wilson in the commission of the homicide. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sixteen federal felony offenses arising from actions he took while acting as the mayor of Bridgeport. After his release from prison, Defendant applied for reinstatement to the bar. The local standing committee issued a report in which it concluded that Defendant was fit to practice law and recommended that he be reinstated. The trial court denied Defendant’s application, concluding that the record did not substantiate a finding of good moral character and fitness to practice law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly concluded that the standing committee abused its discretion when it determined that Defendant was presently fit to practice law and recommended his reinstatement. View "State Grievance Comm. v. Ganim" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two drug-related offenses following a police investigation that culminated in the seizure of heroin from defendant’s home pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress certain statements because the statements had been obtained when a police officer interrogated her during the execution of the search warrant without first advising her in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, determining that, at the time of the police questioning, Defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda, and therefore, Miranda warnings were not required. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was in custody when she was questioned by the police officer, and, as a result, the police were required to advise her of her rights under Miranda; and (2) the Miranda violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Mangual" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the victim’s attorney to testify about an immunity agreement the attorney had negotiated with the State on behalf of the victim. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, holding that, even if the trial court erred in permitting the victim’s attorney to testify, the admission of the testimony was harmless, and therefore, Defendant could not prevail on his claim that he was entitled to a new trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to sell narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent and interfering with an officer. The appellate court affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the appellate court abused its discretion by refusing to adopt the buyer-seller exception applied by federal courts in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence of conspiracy to sell narcotics. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the considerations embodied in the buyer-seller exception are already reflected in the laws of the state; and (2) the evidence demonstrated more than a mere buyer-seller relationship with Defendant’s coconspirator on a single occasion, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conspiracy conviction. View "State v. Allan" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested without a warrant and charged with several crimes. Defendant filed a motion to be released without bond because a probable cause finding had not been made within forty-eight hours of his arrest. The trial court denied Defendant's motion. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the specific facts of this case, any violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was de minimis where (1) Defendant was present in the courthouse awaiting arraignment, at which point probable cause findings are typically made, prior to the expiration of the forty-eight hour period; and (2) the trial court found probable case for Defendant's arrest less than two hours after expiration of the forty-eight hour time period. View "State v. Heredia" on Justia Law