Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree and harassment in the second degree for allegedly threatening a coworker during a telephone call. The appellate court reversed, concluding (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that it could find Defendant guilty of the breach of the peace charge only if it found Defendant's offending speech was a real or true threat not entitled to protection under the First Amendment; and (2) where the telephone harassment statute bars conduct only, the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of the harassment charge because the the case was predicated entirely on Defendant's speech. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions on the breach of the peace charge were inadequate to ensure Defendant was not convicted on the basis of constitutionally protected speech; and (2) the telephone harassment statute applied to speech as well as conduct, but because Defendant did not have fair notice that she could be subjected to punishment for the verbal content of the telephone call, the harassment charge must be dismissed. View "State v. Moulton" on Justia Law

Complainants, an attorney and the Office of the Chief Public Defender, submitted a request for a declaratory ruling to the Connecticut Medical Examining Board asking whether physician participation in the execution of condemned inmates using lethal injection was permitted. Complainants then sent a letter regarding their request for a declaratory ruling. The Board convened an executive session to obtain legal advice about issues raised in the letter. Complainants then filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that Plaintiffs, the Board and its chairperson, violated the Freedom of Information Act by convening in executive session during the meeting for "purposes not permitted" under the Act. The Commission determined the executive session was impermissible under the Act. The trial court upheld the Commission's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the letter did not constitute notice of a pending claim as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. 1-200, and therefore, the Board was not permitted to convene in executive session under the Act. View "Chairperson, Conn. Med. Examining Bd. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. Defendant appealed, contending, among other things, that statements he made to the court during a pretrial hearing and at sentencing indicating dissatisfaction with the performance of his appointed counsel resulted in a clear and unequivocal request invoking the right to self-representation under the Sixth Amendment. The appellate court affirmed Defendant's conviction, concluding that Defendant's statements to the court did not develop into a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to self-representation during the criminal proceedings. View "State v. Pires" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered conditional pleas of nolo contendere to several felony offenses. The appellate court affirmed. Petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Petitioner's appellate counsel, who also served as his trial counsel, failed to file a petition for certification with the Supreme Court challenging the propriety of the appellate court's judgment. The habeas court granted the petition in part and ordered that Petitioner's right to file a petition for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court be restored. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Petitioner failed to introduce evidence that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficiency. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Petitioner's habeas action was not justiciable because it was not ripe for adjudication. Remanded with direction to dismiss the habeas petition. View "Janulawicz v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

This case arose from disputes between the Department of Information Technology and Defendant, a computer equipment supplier, over two contracts between the parties. The Department filed this action against Defendant, alleging breach of contract and fraud claims. Defendant filed an amended counterclaim, alleging takings and due process violations. The Department moved to dismiss the takings and due process claims based on the State's sovereign immunity. The trial court determined that the Department had waived the State's sovereign immunity regarding Defendant's counterclaims by bringing this cause of action against Defendant. After a jury trial, the trial court awarded Defendant damages on its procedural due process counterclaim. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Defendant on the procedural due process counterclaim, holding that the Department did not waive the state's sovereign immunity by initiating the present litigation, and therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant's counterclaims; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Chief Info. Officer v. Computers Plus Ctr., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree. After Defendant was released from prison he was found to have violated the terms and conditions of his probation by engaging in criminal conduct. Accordingly, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation. Defendant appealed, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the finding he had violated his probation. Before oral argument, however, Defendant pleaded guilty to the criminal charges upon which the finding rested. The appellate court subsequently dismissed as moot Defendant's appeal. Defendant appealed, arguing that his habeas corpus action collaterally attacking his criminal conviction revived the controversy such that mootness was averted. During the pendency of Defendant's appeal, the habeas court dismissed Defendant's habeas corpus action. The Supreme Court dismissed as moot Defendant's appeal, holding that dismissal of the habeas corpus action extinguished any claim to a live controversy in this appeal. View "State v. Milner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were twelve beer and soft drink manufacturers doing business in Connecticut. In 2009, the Legislature provided that all unclaimed beverage container deposits, which previously had been retained by Plaintiffs, henceforth must be paid to the State. The legislation was signed into law on January 15, 2009 and made applicable for a four-month period prior to its effective date. Plaintiffs brought this action against the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, claiming that application of the provision to the four month period prior to the effective date was an unconstitutional taking because Plaintiffs had a vested property interest in the unclaimed deposits. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs did not have a vested property interest in the unclaimed deposits attributable to the four month period in question, and therefore, the provision in the act that all unclaimed deposits accruing during that period must be paid to the State did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs' property. View "A. Gallo & Co. v. Comm'r of Envtl. Prot." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight counts of sexual assault in the first degree and eight counts of risk of injury to a child. The sixteen counts were predicated on four separate incidents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of each of the sixteen counts, as there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant abused the complainant on four separate and distinct occasions; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in withholding certain portions of the records of the Department of Children and Families relating to the complainant; and (3) the prosecutor did not engage in improper argument during closing argument. View "State v. Stephen J. R." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of murder and related firearms offenses. The appellate court affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for postconviction DNA testing, which the lower court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Petition filed a second petition for DNA testing. The lower court dismissed the petition on the basis of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed on an alternative ground, holding that the petition failed on the merits, as the reasonable probability standard, which requires access to DNA testing only if exculpatory results discovered by DNA testing would undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial, was not met in this case. View "State v. Dupigney" on Justia Law

Employee was discharged from his employment for allegedly engaging in sexual harassment. Employee's union filed a grievance against Employer, and the parties submitted the controversy to arbitration. The arbitrator reduced the dismissal to a one year suspension without pay, finding the dismissal was without just cause. Employer filed an application to vacate the arbitral award, claiming that enforcement of the award violated public policy. The trial court granted the application and vacated the arbitrator's award on public policy grounds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the award violated the public policy against workplace sexual harassment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace required nothing less than Employee's termination. View "State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 391" on Justia Law