SC20132 - State v. Sawyer ("The defendant, Thomas William Sawyer, was convicted on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54-94a; of possession of child pornography in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196e. The defendant entered his plea following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress hundreds of photographs and a smaller number of videos of suspected child pornography that the police recovered from computer equipment and related media storage seized from the defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant appealed from his conviction to the Appellate Court, and the case was transferred to this court. On appeal, the defendant argues that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the issuing judge could not have reasonably inferred from descriptions in the search warrant affidavit of two photographs of nude children that the photographs were lascivious. This case requires us to decide whether the totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support a finding of probable cause to believe that a search of the defendant's residence would uncover evidence of possession of child pornography. Because we conclude that the affidavit did support this finding, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC42267 - State v. Rosa (Murder; assault in first degree; criminal possession of firearm; unpreserved claim that state suppressed DNA evidence that was material to defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) and did not disclose it until after jury returned verdict; "The defendant, Tyrone Rosa, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5) and one count of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant claims that the state suppressed evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). Specifically, the defendant asserts that, either before his trial began or while the trial was ongoing, the state, via its agent, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection's division of scientific services (division), acquired evidence that the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) reported that a DNA profile that was developed from the swabbing of a discarded sweatshirt found in the vicinity of the crime scene matched (CODIS match) a DNA sample collected from a convicted felon, Javier Otero. He asserts that this evidence, which was favorable to him and material for purposes of Brady, was not disclosed to the defense until after the jury had returned a guilty verdict. He asserts that this evidence would have bolstered his sole theory of defense that an unknown gunman committed the crimes and also would have discredited the state's key witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court because we conclude that the defendant has failed to prove that the CODIS match was material to his defense.")

AC41544 - State v. Bradbury (Criminal possession of firearm; carrying pistol without permit; assault in first degree; criminal attempt to commit robbery in first degree; "The defendant, Wayne S. Bradbury, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following the jury's guilty verdict, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). The defendant claims that, in light of the jury's not guilty finding on the remaining charges, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC43140 - State v. Richards (Murder; whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction; "The defendant, Jermain V. Richards, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a third jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction and (2) the court erred in not giving a special credibility instruction applicable to the testimony of a cooperating witness. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC41962 - State v. Prince A. (Sexual assault in first degree; sexual assault in fourth degree; risk of injury to child; constancy of accusation doctrine discussed; "The defendant, Prince A., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted testimony of a constancy of accusation witness to refute any negative inferences the jury might have drawn from the victim's delay in reporting the sexual assault because that witness mistakenly believed that there had been no delay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40991 - State v. Bornstein (Interlocutory appeal; violation of civil protection order; harassment in second degree; motion to dismiss; claim that state was collaterally estopped from pursuing criminal charges because relevant factual allegations had been subject of full evidentiary hearing at hearing on request for civil protection order that was denied; lack of final judgment; "The defendant, David S. Bornstein, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss charges of harassment and violation of a civil protection order.The motion asserted that the state was collaterally estopped from pursuing the charges against him. The state argues that the defendant's appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final judgment or, in the alternative, denied on its merits. We agree with the state and dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

AC42745 - State v. Albert D. (Risk of injury to child; sexual assault in fourth degree; sexual assault in first degree; attempt to commit sexual assault in first degree; claim that defendant was entitled to new trial on basis of alleged prosecutorial improprieties during state's rebuttal closing argument; "The defendant, Albert D., appeals from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) and 53a-70 (a) (2), three counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A), and six counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial improprieties during the state's rebuttal closing argument. Specifically, the defendant contends that the prosecutor (1) incorrectly stated that the state's experts were not allowed to meet with the victims, and (2) improperly vouched for her own credibility and the credibility of one of the state's witnesses. The defendant further argues that the improprieties resulted in a denial of his due process right to a fair trial pursuant to the six factor test set forth in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987). We conclude that the prosecutor's comments with regard to the purported inability of the state's experts to meet with the victims constituted an impropriety that, nevertheless, did not deprive the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial. We further conclude that the prosecutor's comments with respect to her own credibility and the credibility of one of the state's witnesses were not improper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of conviction.")

AC42405 - State v. Hargett (Murder; claim that trial court's exclusion of evidence deprived defendant of right to present defense; "The defendant, Nasir R. Hargett, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder. In addition, the jury also found, pursuant to an interrogatory, that "the defendant employed the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony," and the court accordingly enhanced his sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his sixth amendment right to present a defense by excluding from evidence (a) a statement purportedly made by a bystander and (b) an autopsy toxicology report, (2) violated his right to due process by declining to give a jury instruction on self-defense, (3) abused its discretion by admitting firearm related evidence, and (4) violated his right to a fair trial by failing to grant his motion for a new trial or to dismiss the charges. The defendant also claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial due to prosecutorial impropriety that occurred during final argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC20193 - State v. Jackson (Murder; conspiracy to commit murder; assault first degree; certification from Appellate Court; whether Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that trial court had not abused its discretion when it allowed state's belatedly disclosed expert witness on cell site location information to testify without first granting defense reasonable continuance to obtain its own expert; "The defendant, Raashon Jackson, appeals from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming his conviction of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a (a), and four counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5). See State v. Jackson, 183 Conn. App. 623, 627, 193 A.3d 585 (2018). The defendant claims, among other things, that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to permit the state's expert witness on cell site location information (CSLI) to testify as to what that information revealed about the location of the defendant and his associates during the time the crimes occurred because the state disclosed the expert after voir dire began and only one week before evidence started, despite a court order issued six months earlier requiring the state to disclose any experts. Alternatively, the defendant argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny his related motion for a continuance to obtain his own CSLI expert. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the state's late disclosed expert witness to testify without first granting the defendant a reasonable continuance to obtain his own expert. Because we also conclude that this error was harmful, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions