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. 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. 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. 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. 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

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Walters (AC 28496) November 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Danbury

Synopsis:  The state does not have to prove a driver was operating improperly to convict the driver of driving while intoxicated (DWI) / driving under the influence (DUI).  It is only necessary to show that a driver, while intoxicated, does any act that is intended to put a motor vehicle into operation.

Case Link:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP111/111AP37.pdf

   For Criminal Law Help Click This Line 

Case:  State v. Custer (AC 28649) October 2008

Court:  Connecticut Appellate Court

Trial Court:  Manchester

Synopsis:  The holder of a commerical driver’s license who was charged with driver while intoxicated (DWI) was found ineligible for Connecticut’s Alcohol Education Program (AEP) because the law at the time the driver was stopped excluded anyone holding a commercial driver’s license from the program.  (The law has since been changed to allow someone holding a commercial driver’s license to use the program unless he or she was operating  a commercial vehicle at the time of the arrest.)

Case Link:   http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP110/110AP9.pdf