Page 32 - CLT061421

32 ■ JUNE 14, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT APPELLATE COURT

CRIMINAL APPEALS CONTRACTS • LANDLORD TENANT LAW

Criminal Defendant Unable to Justify Parties Bound to Joint Stipulation of
Insanity Defense Facts
CASE: Connecticut v. Weathers CASE: Fairfield Shores, LLC v. DeSalvo
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20297 DOC. NO.: AC 42969
COURT OPINION BY: Palmer COURT OPINION BY: Devlin
DATE: May 28, 2021 • PAGES: 26 DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 13
A criminal defendant, who alleged that the trial Plaintiff sought to recover damages for alleged
court improperly rejected his affirmative defense damage to rental property. Plaintiff and defen-
of mental disease or defect, failed to show that dants entered into a rental agreement that had
the decision was unjustified. In 2015, the de- a $10,000 security deposit. Plaintiff claimed
fendant Gregory L. Weathers, walked onto a that defendants caused damage to property
construction job site and, after applying for a exceeding the deposit. Defendants filed coun-
position with the construction company, hid be- terclaim, alleging that plaintiff violated the
hind a vehicle and opened fire on two workers, security deposit statute and that the lease con-
killing one of them. After his arrest, defendant stituted a security deposit. The parties filed a
claimed insanity, and presented two expert wit- joint stipulation of facts that the total security
nesses. The trial court found that while there deposit was $10,000 and the trial court found
was credible evidence of a mental disease, there for the plaintiff. Defendants appealed. Plaintiff
was no evidence that it was present at the time argued that defendants’ appeal was moot, al-
of the offense and ultimately sentenced defen- leging that defendants did not challenge all in-
dant to forty-five years imprisonment. Defen- dependent bases for the trial court’s judgment.
dant appealed, arguing that the decision to deny The court, however, held that it was not a moot
his insanity claim was arbitrary, but the court appeal because it could provide meaningful re-
disagreed, and upheld the decision. lief. Then, the court held that the trial court

Visit: ctlawtribune.com | Call: 860-757-6659

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune