For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Browne (SC 18195) May2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Middletown

Synopsis:  A search pursuant to a warrant that mistakenly referred to cocaine instead of marijuana was constitutional because (1) the affidavit supporting the warrant correctly referred to marijuana and (2) the erroneous part of the warrant could be severed.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR291/291cr57.pdf

Case Citation:  Conn. App.  (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Popeleski (SC 18250) May 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Manchester

To admit evidence of failing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test in a drunk driving case, the state must show (1) that the test satisfies the criteria for admission of scientific evidence, (2) lay a proper foundation with regard to the qualifications of the individual administering the test and (3) demonstrate that the test was conducted in accordance with relevant procedures.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR291/291cr76.pdf

Case Citation:  291 Conn. 769, 970 A.2d 108 (2009)

   For Workers Compensation Help Click This Line 

Case:  Donahue v. Veridiem, Inc.  (SC 18237) May 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Workers’ Comp District:  New Britain

Synopsis:  An employer who fails to contest liability or pay benefits in a workers compensation case within 28 days of the injury cannot contest liability for the injury or the extent of disability.  The injured worker still has to present evidence to the commissioner to prove the case, but the employer cannot challenge that proof.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR291/291CR69.pdf

Case Citation:  291 Conn. 537, 547, 970 A.2d 630 (2009)

   For Workers Compensation Help Click This Line 

Case:  Dzienkiewicz v. Dept. of Correction (SC 18255) April 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Workers’ Comp District:  Middletown

Synopsis:  A workers compensation commissioner was not required to accept as an admission by the state department of corrections a decision by the state disability medical board granting disability retirement to a corrections officer for stroke, stress and hypertension.  The court held that the mere fact that the defendant and the medical board are both agencies of the state does not establish such unity of identity that the state, instead of the department of corrections, is deemed the party opponent.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR291/291cr53.pdf

Case Citation: 291 Conn. 214 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Cyr (SC 2009) March 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Manchester

Synopsis:  Connecticut case law holds that a person operates a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute which prohibits driving while intoxicated when he or she intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or electrical agency which alone or in sequence with other acts will set in motion the motive power of the vehicle.  In upholding the defendant’s conviction for drunk driving, the court held that in starting the engine of the vehicle remotely then getting behind the steering wheel, the defendant had undertaken the first act in a sequence of steps necessary to set in motion the motive power of a vehicle, even if the vehicle could not be driven until the key was in the ignition.  The court noted a prior decision that a person was properly convicted of operating under the influence when he was found sleeping in the driver’s seat of his legally parked vehicle, with the key in the ignition and the headlights on, but without the motor running.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR291/291CR51.pdf

Case Citation:  ____ Conn. ____ (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Burnell (SC 18139) March 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Meriden

Synopsis:  Double jeopardy does not prohibit a driver charged with driving while intoxicated whose license has been suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles from being prosecuted in criminal court.  The DMV suspension is not a conviction because although is has a deterrent effect, its main purpose is to promote public safety by removing unsafe drivers from the road.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290cr47.pdf

Case Citation:  290 Conn. 634 (2009)

   For Personal Injury Help Click This Line 

Case:  Vermont Mutual Ins. Co. v. Walukiewicz (SC 18061) March 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Norwich

Synopsis:  A homeowner’s insurance policy that excludes coverage for intentionally caused injuries must still cover injuries caused in self-defense.  Although a person defending himself or herself may intend to cause an injury, acts of self-defense are a response to unexpected, unforeseen and unintended events and therefore are “accidents.”

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR38.pdf

Case Citation:  290 Conn. 582 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Ray (SC 17905) March 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Stamford

Synopsis:  Although he denied using drugs and held down a job at times, the defendant was found to be drug dependent as he was in and out of treatment since the 1980’s and recently had been unfavorably discharged from a rehab program.  The court also held that the State did not have to prove  a lack of drug dependency beyond a reasonable doubt even though the penalties are greater for non-drug dependent persons.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR16S.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Bell (AC 29893) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  Allowing evidence that an Amber Alert was issued for the defendant was error because fears over the child’s safety were not relevant to proving the defendant’s guilt and because the evidence could have unduly aroused the juror’s emotions, hostility or sympathy.  The error was harmless, however, in light of all the other evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP113/113AP184.pdf

   For Foreclosure Help Click This Line 

Case:  X First Conn. Capital v. Homes of Westport (AC 28991) February 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Stamford - Norwalk

Synopsis:  Conn. Practice Book § 61-14 provides that upon appeal the execution of an order of the court terminating a stay of execution shall be stayed for ten days from the issuance of notice of the order.  The foreclosure court erred by ordering that the stay of execution would not go into effect.  It was thus error for the foreclosure by sale to occur within the ten days

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP165.pdf