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. 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. 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. 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. 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:  State v. Williams (AC 27628) 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Stamford - Norwalk

Synopsis:  Conviction of possession of narcotics (cocaine and marijuana) with intent to sell was upheld against a backseat passenger of a car.  Although there were two frontseat occupants in the car, there was enough evidence to show the backseat passenger’s “constructive possession” of the narcotics.  The drugs were found on the backseat floor where the passenger’s feet had been, he had easier access to the drugs than the other occupants, he moved from one side of the backseat to the other after the police had stopped the car, he appeared “fidgety” and he gave the police a false first name

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP513.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Hall (AC 27823) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Bristol

Synopsis:  After stopping a driver in Bristol for driving at night with the headlights off, a police officer was entitled to check the driver for driving under the influence (dui) because the car smelled overwhelmingly of cologne, there was an unopened bottle of cologne in the car, the driver’s eyes were dilated, and the driver hesitated in answering questions.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP462.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. John F.M. (AC 25313) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New Haven

Synopsis:  The defendant was accused of third degree sexual assault for having sexual relations with a seventeen year old who allegedly was his stepdaughter.  The trial court instructed the jury that they could consider his admission to the police that he was the victim’s stepfather as evidence.  The defendant appealed, claiming that this jury instruction took away an essential element of the crime.  The Appellate Court rejected the appeal, holding that a defendant’s admission of a familial relationship for purposes of a criminal prosecution are admissible and often sufficient, although not conclusive, evidence.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP485.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Mullins (SC 18097) August 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  Because possession of narcotics in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 21a-279(a) is a lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell in violation of § 21a-277(a), double jeapordy precludes conviction on both charges if they arise from the same act or transaction.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288cr126.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  Faraday v. Cmmr. of Correction (SC 17694) August 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court: 

Synopsis:  For a prisoner to establish a claim of deliberate indifference in violation of the 8^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the prisoner must prove that the prison officials’ actions constituted more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.  The defendant must prove a state of mind equivalent to criminal recklessness.

Case Link: 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288cr740.pdf

Case:  State v. Williams (AC 27941) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  New Britain

Synopsis:  Once police lawfully arrest someone, they may conduct a warrantless search of the immediate area around the arrested person for drugs, weapons or evidence even if the arrested person has been handcuffed.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110ap472.pdf

  For Criminal Defense Help Click This Line 

  For Criminal Defense Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Gore (SC 17769) September 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Synopsis:  Because a right to a jury trial in a criminal case is a fundamental constitutional right, a defendant must expressly say that he or she is waiving the right to a jury.  It is not sufficient for the defendant to simply remain silent while his or her criminal defense lawyer tells the judge that a jury trial is being waived.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR288/288cr140.pdf 

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Kemah (SC 18148) November 2008

Court:  Connecticut Supreme Court

Trial Court:  Danielson

Synopsis:  A complainant’s signing of a release to provide the prosecution with mental health records does not mean the complainant has waived confidentiality so as to allow the records to be released to the defendant.  The prosecution reviews the records as part of its obligation to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to proceed with criminal charges.  The trial court must still review the records in camera to see if they should be released to the defendant.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR4.pdf