Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of murder, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a pistol, and risk of injury to a child. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an inquiry into his claim of juror misconduct. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to conduct an inquiry into Defendant’s claim. After approximately a decade, the trial court held the required inquiry and found no evidence of juror misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that there was no evidence of juror misconduct; and (2) the delay on remand did not violate Defendant’s due process rights. View "State v. Roman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree. Defendant appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial on the ground that his mother had tampered with the jury by approaching a juror outside the courthouse and speaking to him about the evidence in the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the presumption of prejudice in jury tampering cases set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Remmer v. United States remains good law in cases of external interference with the jury’s deliberative process via private communication, contact, or tampering with jurors about the pending matter; and (2) the State carried its burden of proving that the actions of Defendant’s mother did not lead to the reasonable possibility that any juror’s ability to decide this case fairly and impartially was affected. View "State v. Berrios" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that that Defendant was entitled to a new trial due to certain alleged improprieties that the prosecutor committed during his cross-examination of Defendant and in closing argument. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that Defendant was substantially prejudiced by the improprieties at issue in this case; (2) the trial court properly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense; and (3) the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the knife that Defendant used during the assault. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of narcotics with intent to sell and conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell. The Appellate Court reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that the prosecutor violated a court order concerning the permissible boundaries of argument and referred to facts outside the record, thus rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The State appealed, claiming that the prosecutor’s remarks were not improper. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that one of the prosecutor’s arguments was improper, but this improper argument did not deprive Defendant of his due process right to a fair trial because there was no reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor’s comments affected the jury’s verdict. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-70c(a)(1) and (6), and other offenses. Defendant sought review pursuant to State v. Golding, claiming that his convictions and sentences for two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor violate his right to be free of double jeopardy because they constitute multiple punishments for the same offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because subdivisions (1) and (6) of section 53a-70c(a) each require proof of a fact that the other does not, and because nothing in either the statutory text or legislative history of the statute reveals a contrary legislative intent, multiple convictions under section 53a-70c for the same transaction do not run afoul of the double jeopardy clause. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child for sexually abusing a four-year-old girl. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present expert testimony regarding the suggestibility of young children and the reliability of a child’s recollection of sexual abuse. The habeas court reversed, concluding that Petitioner established that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure of Petitioner’s trial counsel to present the expert testimony was objectively reasonable because there was a legitimate, strategic reason for not presenting such testimony. View "Michael T. v. Comm’r of Corr." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The plea agreement stated that Petitioner would receive a total sentence of between twenty and twenty-five years’ imprisonment and that defense counsel had a right to argue for a sentence beneath the twenty-five year cap. At sentencing, defense counsel agreed with the prosecutor’s recommendation that the trial court should impose the maximum sentence under the agreement. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-five years imprisonment. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court denied relief, determining that Petitioner failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the habeas court properly determined that Petitioner failed to prove actual prejudice under Strickland. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the habeas court improperly applied Strickland to Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim because a complete breakdown in the adversarial process occurred, and therefore, Petitioner’s claim was instead controlled by United States v. Cronic, under which prejudice should be presumed. View "Davis v. Comm’r of Corr." on Justia Law

When thirty-one-year-old Bill Smolinski disappeared, Defendants, Bill’s mother and sister, began to pressure Plaintiff, Bill’s former girlfriend, into cooperating with the investigation by saying disparaging things to Plaintiff’s acquaintances and posting missing person flyers depicting Bill along Plaintiff’s school bus route and near her home. Plaintiff brought this action claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages on her claims. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court’s findings on Plaintiff’s claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress did not consider - and were not consistent with - the First Amendment limitations placed on these torts. View "Gleason v. Smolinski" on Justia Law

Defendant was found not guilty of certain offenses by reason of mental disease or defect and transferred to a maximum security psychiatric facility. Defendant was charged with new, violent crimes while housed at the facility. The trial court set a monetary bond as a condition of release. Because Defendant was unable to post that bond, he was transferred to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction at a prison while awaiting trial on the new charges. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court’s imposition of a monetary bond and, after Defendant was unable to post that bond, Defendant’s transfer to the custody of the Commissioner, did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights to (1) bail, pursuant to the Connecticut Constitution; and (2) procedural due process, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree. During trial, in seeking to imply that the complainant had a motive to testify favorably for the State, Defendant sought to question the complainant on recross-examination about the conditions of her participation in a pretrial diversionary program on a felony charge pending against her in an unrelated case. The trial court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the proffered evidence was greater than its probative value. The Appellate Court reversed the conviction, concluding that the trial court violated Defendant’s right to confrontation by precluding Defendant from eliciting such evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the testimony he sought to obtain and the complainant’s motive to testify favorably for the State to implicate his right to confrontation. View "State v. Benedict" on Justia Law