Page 29 - CLT061520

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 15, 2020 ¦ 29

affirmatively decides to return a child or declines err. It held that based on defendant’s testimony,
to take any affirmative steps to do so upon the law- the lower court could have found that defendant
ful custodian’s request. The court also reasoned did not withdraw funds from the parties’ joint
that the phrase can be defined by common diction- bank accounts in violation of the court orders
ary definitions. The court then found that there and that it was appropriate to let each party keep
was sufficient evidence to support her conviction, their own bank accounts as part of the distribu-
citing testimony from the police officer and the tion. The court also found that the trial court did
children’s father that defendant stated she would not improperly order that plaintiff either return
not make the children leave. the defendant’s jewelry to her or forfeit $50,000
of his share of the profit from the sale of one of
Court Affirmed Defendant’s Conviction, their homes. The court did not address plaintiff’s
Finding Sufficient Evidence For A Drug claim about his exhibits not being entered into
DUI Conviction evidence because there was an inadequate record
as to the issue; the plaintiff never requested that
any of those exhibits be marked for identification.
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Velazquez Lastly, the court held that the trial court did not
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court untimely consider the plaintiff’s pretrial motions
DOC. NO.: AC 40224 because the plaintiff failed to prove that he was
COURT OPINION BY: Bear harmed by the timing or the actual rulings. The
DATE: June 02, 2020 • PAGES: 8
Defendant was convicted of driving while under court affirmed.
the influence of drugs. He appealed, claiming
there was insufficient evidence to support a con- Court Reversed Lower Court’s Finding
viction and that the trial court improperly admit- Of Contempt In Family Law Litigation,
ted certain police testimony. The court affirmed.
Defendant was involved in a car accident and Finding The Stipulation Underlying The
when police responded, they smelled marijuana Motions For Contempt Was Not Clear
coming from his car. He failed three sobriety
tests, he was stumbling, dazed and confused, and CASE: Chang v. Chang
admitted to smoking marijuana one hour before COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
the accident. The court found the evidence suffi- DOC. NO.: AC 42175
cient for a conviction. The court also rejected the COURT OPINION BY: Alvord
defendant’s argument that the trial court abused DATE: June 02, 2020 • PAGES: 16
its discretion by allowing the officer to testify he The parties’ marriage was previously dissolved.
smelled marijuana in the defendant’s car. The The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for
court affirmed the defendant’s conviction contempt, which was predicated on a postjudg-
ment order of the court that incorporated a stipu-
lation by the parties. Plaintiff alleged in her mo-
FAMILY LAW tion that defendant violated the stipulation when

Court Affirmed Lower Court’s he returned their son late on four occasions and
Distribution Of Marital Property refused to work with the guardian to resolve a
parenting access schedule. In his motion for con-
tempt, defendant alleged that plaintiff violated
CASE: Kammili v. Kammili a court order by removing their daughter from
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court physical therapy sessions. The court reversed the
DOC. NO.: AC 41576 trial court’s judgments in part. The court first held
COURT OPINION BY: Prescott that the lower court erroneously granted plain-
DATE: June 02, 2020 • PAGES: 15
Plaintiff and defendant’s marriage dissolved tiff’s motion as to the parenting access schedule
and the plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s because the language in the stipulation, “the par-
judgment, claiming the court inequitably distrib- ties shall work with the guardian ad litem,” was
uted the marital property, erroneously refused to not clear and unambiguous. The court then held
admit some of his exhibits into evidence, and im- that the trial court correctly denied plaintiff’s mo-
properly considered some of his pretrial motions tion for contempt alleging the defendant returned
after the trial concluded. The court affirmed. the son late, because there was no exact time in
The court first addressed the marital property the stipulation that the defendant was required
distribution, finding that the lower court did not to return him. Lastly, the court held that the trial

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune