Serrano & Serrano, LLC - Connecticut Lawyers - Accidents, Divorce, Social Security Disability, Immigration, Bankruptcy - Hartford 860 236-9350 * Waterbury 203 729-6100 * Toll-Free 800 856-6400

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Nathan J. (SC 17903) December 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court 

Synopsis:  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-18 states that a parent or guardian may use reasonable physical force upon a minor if the parent or guardian reasonably believes such force is necessary to maintain discipline or promote the minor’s welfare.  This statute applies to the felony crime of risk of injury.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR9.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 243 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Grant (SC 18177) November 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  A BB gun is a firearm for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat.

§ 53-202k which provides for a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for any person who uses or threatens the use of a firearm while committing a Class A, B or C felony.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR139.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 151, 982 A.2d 169 (Conn. 2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Fernando A. (SC 18045, 18103) April 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  If a protective order is entered after an arrest for domestic violence, the defendant can request a more extensive hearing about whether the order needs to remain in place.  At the hearing, the state must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the protective order needs to continue to protect the victim.  The state may offer reliable hearsay evidence and the trial court can decide whether testimony from the complainant or other witnesses is necessary for the protective order to continue. The defendant may testify or present witnesses and may cross-examine any state witnesses.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR294/294CR144.pdf

Case Citation:  294 Conn. 1, 981 A.2d 427 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Morelli (SC18047) April 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Norwalk

Synopsis:  A jury could find a defendant in a drunk driving case guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor who admitted to consuming alcohol, had accelerated into an intersection where an accident occurred, had acted belligerently toward the responding police officers, and had displayed a consciousness of guilt by refusing a breathalyzer test.  proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293cr122.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 147, 976 A.2d 678 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Long (SC18245 ) August 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  A golden rule argument improperly urges jurors to put themselves in a party’s place or into a party’s shoes, encouraging jurors to depart from neutrality and decide on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence.  The prosecutor’s statement in a risk of injury and sexual assault case to “think of what it would be like as [C] is sitting, having to explain to somebody what happened to her,” was not an improper golden rule argument or an improper request for sympathy.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293CR105.pdf

Case Citation:  293 Conn. 31, 975 A.2d 660 (2009)

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Gilberto L. (SC 18213) June 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  Playing back testimony to the jury when a criminal defendant is absent from the courtroom does not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to be present at trial.  The court held that the playback of the testimony was not a critical stage of the trial because there was nothing useful the defendant could have done during the playback to contribute to his defense.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR292/292CR70.pdf

Case Citation: 292 Conn. 226 (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 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 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 Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Fontaine (AC 28566) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New London

Synopsis:  A moped, like an All Terrain Vehicle (ATV), is considered a motor vehicle for purposes of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a, the statute governing driving while intoxicated (driving under the influence), and § 14-215, governing driving with a suspended license.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP112/112AP108.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Wilson (AC 28554) December 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  A warrantless search of a vehicle was constitutional under the following conditions: (1) an individual told an undercover police officer that a man would be arriving with crack cocaine for sale; (2) the driver arrived moments later in a vehicle; (3) the driver walked into a restaurant and sold crack cocaine to several persons, including the undercover officer; (4) the driver left the restaurant and immediately walked back toward his vehicle; (5) the dreiver fled after seeing a police officer, throwing away a cell phone that contained packets of crack cocaine; (6) the defendant was searched and had a key to the vehicle.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP111/111AP74.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Carrasquillo (SC 17568) January 2009

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the death penalty for juveniles as cruel and unusual punishment, the 25-year minimum sentence for murder under Connecticut law is not unconstitutional.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR160.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

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

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Stamford

Synopsis:  In a cocaine sale case, the court held it is not unconstitutional to require that a defendant charged with sale of narcotics prove as an affirmative defense that he or she is not drug dependent.  The court stated that it is not the absence of drug dependency that increases the range of punishment to which the accused is exposed under § 21a-277 (a), sale of narcotics, but rather, it is the presence of drug dependency that decreases the range of punishment to which the accused is exposed under § 21a-278 (b), sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependent person.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR16.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Bowman (SC 17699) December 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  The trial court’s jury instructions properly defined the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as ‘‘the greatest degree of intensity away from the defendant’s normal state.’’

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR19.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Rowe v. Superior Court (SC 17718) December 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  The trial court erred in charging a witness with two counts of contempt for refusing to answer questions because the refusal could be viewed as either a blanket refusal to testify or a refusal to testify regarding a specific area on inquiry.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR169.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Smith (SC 17731) November 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  Although a nolle is functionally equivalent to a dismissal without prejudice, the State can still file charges, even the same ones, at a later time, provided that the statute of limitations has not run.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289cr7.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Re (AC 29001) December 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Bridgeport

Synopsis:  An intoxicated driver who causes a fatal accident can be convicted of both manslaughter in the second degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-56(a)(1) and manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-56  (a) without violating the right to be free of double jeopardy because the first charge requires operation while intoxicated and the second charge requires reckless operation.  However, conviction of both operating while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a(a)(1) and of operating with an elevated blood level content in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a(a)(2) violates double jeopardy.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP111/111AP30.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Cyrus (AC 28889) December 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Danielson

Synopsis:  To justify a Terry stop of a vehicle, an officer must have a reasonable belief that an object hanging from a rearview mirror distracts the driver or obstructs the driver’s view.  That a driver had a crucifix hanging from his rearview mirror in and of itself did not give a police officer the right to stop the vehicle.  As the officer did not testify that he thought the crucifix was distracting the driver or obstructing his view, the stop was improper and the charges against the driver for driving under the influence / driving while intoxicated (DUI / DWI) were properly dismissed.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP111/111AP61.pdf