Source: http://jud.ct.gov/LawLib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?ArchMY=201706
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 15:46:30
Document Index: 86519328

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 53', '§ 8', '§ 25', '§ 53']

Jun 28 2017 11:55AM by Booth, George
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=526
AC38206 - State v. Purcell (Risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Robert John Purcell, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, of conviction of one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1) and of two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). The jury found the defendant not guilty of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), two counts of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant raises various claims pertaining to testimony by the victim's mother that the victim had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD testimony) and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements that he made to the police during a custodial interrogation. With respect to the PTSD testimony, the defendant claims that allowing the victim's mother to testimony about his medical conditions constituted a harmful evidentiary error, which was based on the PTSD testimony. With respect to his motion to suppress, the defendant claims that the interrogating detectives violated Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), by continuing to question him after he clearly and unambiguously invoked his right to counsel. Alternatively, the defendant argues that, even if his invocations were ambiguous or equivocal, and therefore ineffective under Edwards, article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution required the interrogating detectives to clarify his statements before questioning him further. We reject the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=530
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=532
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=531
Jun 28 2017 11:32AM by Townsend, Karen
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=528
AC38033 - Marra v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly dismissed his eighteen count petition, which alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his prior habeas attorneys, because the court improperly (1) relied on a decision of the prior habeas court deeming his withdrawal of that action as being ‘‘with prejudice’’ and (2) concluded that the deliberate bypass doctrine barred his action. We conclude that only the form of the habeas court’s judgment is improper and, accordingly, reverse the judgment on that limited ground.")
Law Library Hours Update: June 30th - July 7th
Jun 27 2017 12:17PM by Dowd, Jeffrey
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=525
Danbury Law Library will be closed from 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
New Britain Law Library will be closed at 2:30 p.m.
Rockville Law Library will open at 1:00 p.m.
All Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries are closed for the holiday.
Danbury Law Library will be open from 9;00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Danbury Law Library will be open from 10;00 a.m. - 4:15 p.m.
Law Library Hours Update: June 23rd - June 30th
Jun 23 2017 3:34PM by Dowd, Jeffrey
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=524
Danbury Law Library will be closed from 1 - 5 p.m.
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=523
Law Library Hours Update: June 22nd - June 23rd
Jun 22 2017 11:32AM by Dowd, Jeffrey
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=521
Waterbury Law Library will open at 9:45 a.m.
New London Law Library will be closing at 3:00 p.m.
Jun 21 2017 3:51PM by Zigadto, Janet
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=520
SC19635 - O'Brien v. O'Brien ("In this certified appeal arising from a marital dissolution action, we must determine whether a trial court properly may consider a party's violation of a court order when distributing marital property, even if the trial court finds that the violation is not contemptuous. The plaintiff, Michael J. O'Brien, filed this action to dissolve his marriage to the defendant, Kathleen E. O'Brien. During the pendency of the action, the plaintiff sold shares of stock and exercised certain stock options without first receiving permission from either the defendant or the trial court, as required by Practice Book § 25-5, which also provides that a party who fails to obey the orders automatically entered thereunder may be held in contempt of court. The trial court found that the plaintiff's transactions violated those orders but did not hold the plaintiff in contempt because the court concluded the violations were not wilful. Nevertheless, because the transactions had caused a significant loss to the marital estate, the court considered that loss when it distributed the marital property between the parties, awarding a greater than even distribution to the defendant. On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that, in the absence of a finding of contempt, the trial court lacked the authority to afford the defendant a remedy for the plaintiff's violation of the automatic orders. See O'Brien v. O'Brien, 161 Conn. App. 575, 591, 128 A.3d 595 (2015). We thereafter granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: 'Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered the plaintiff's purported violations of the automatic orders in its decision dividing marital assets [even though the court did not hold the plaintiff in contempt of court for those violations]?' O'Brien v. O'Brien, 320 Conn. 916, 131 A.3d 751 (2016). We agree with the defendant that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in considering the plaintiff's violations of the automatic orders in its division of the marital assets, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")
Jun 21 2017 3:25PM by Booth, George
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=518
SC19790 - State v. Seeley (Forgery second degree; supervisory authority over administration of justice; "The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in a trial to the court, the state presented sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief to support the conviction of the defendant, James Seeley, of forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139 (a) (1) in connection with a document created to facilitate the purchase of a vehicle on behalf of a corporation. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented, the defendant claims that we should exercise our supervisory authority over the administration of justice to abandon the waiver rule in the context of court trials, and review the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal following the state's case-in-chief, despite the fact that he elected to introduce evidence of his own. We need not reach the defendant's claim regarding the waiver rule because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the state's case-in-chief to support the defendant's conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=517
Law Library Hours Update: June 21st - June 23rd
Jun 21 2017 2:41PM by Dowd, Jeffrey
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=516
New London Law Library will be closed at 12:45 p.m.
Rockville Law Library will be closed until 1:00 p.m.
Stamford Law Library will be closed at 1:00 p.m.
Jun 20 2017 3:53PM by Dowd, Jeffrey
http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=514