Page 30 - CLT070620

30 ¦ JULY 6, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Defendant was convicted of two counts of risk of FAMILY LAW
injury to a child arising out of two separate acts
of masturbation in the presence of the minor vic- Court Reversed Lower Court’s
tim. Defendant appealed and the court affirmed. Judgment In Marital Dissolution
Defendant claimed there was insufficient evidence
to support his conviction. He argued that the only Lawsuit Where Ability To Pay Was A
evidence as to the second incident was two state- Material Consideration
ments he made to the police, which were admitted
without objection at trial. The victim had testified CASE: Moyher v. Moyher
only to one incident. Defendant argued that the COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
corroboration rule prevented his confession from DOC. NO.: AC 41795
being used as the only evidence of the second in- COURT OPINION BY: DiPentima
cident because there was no substantial indepen- DATE: June 23, 2020 • PAGES: 8
dent evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the
confession. The court held that there was sufficient The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2017 and
evidence to corroborate his confession: his written the trial court issued several financial orders. De-
statement that he had masturbated twice in front fendant appealed on several grounds, and the court
of the victim, which was a statement against penal reversed in part. Defendant’s first argument was
interest; the fact that he voluntarily went to the po- that the trial court erroneously found that a house
lice and agreed to do a videotaped interview; the in New Hampshire constituted marital property
defendant’s statements were very similar to the vic- subject to equitable distribution. The court re-
tim’s testimony; and defendant’s DNA was on the jected that argument. It found that the trial court
bottom of the victim’s bedspread. Therefore, the considered statutory factors in making its deter-
court found there was sufficient evidence to support mination, including factors such as contributions
defendant’s conviction. both parties made in building and maintaining the
house and the time the parties spent there over the
course of the marriage. The court declined to ad-
dress defendant’s second claim, that the trial court
Court Found Sufficient Evidence To erred in not allowing him to present evidence of an
Support Defendant’s First-Degree alleged prenuptial agreement, because defendant
did not preserve this claim during trial. However,
Assault Conviction the court did find that the trial court abused its dis-

CASE: State of Connecticut v. Magaraci cretion in ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42264 her share of the New Hampshire property with-
in five months of the dissolution judgment. The
COURT OPINION BY: Flynn court held that the lower court did not properly
DATE: June 23, 2020 • PAGES: 10 consider the statutory factors when ordering de-
fendant to pay, stating that defendant’s ability to
Defendant was convicted of first-degree assault after pay was a material consideration and in this case,
he stabbed two people with a knife. He appealed, defendant was unemployed at the time of trial
claiming there was insufficient evidence to support and had not been working since November 2016.
a conviction because the state failed to prove it was Therefore, the court reversed in part.
not in self-defense. The court affirmed. The court
noted that the state presented credible evidence that
defendant was the initial aggressor who lunged and
stabbed one victim, and in the process also stabbed SUPERIOR COURT
the second victim. The jury was allowed to reject
the defendant’s version of events and noted that
defendant admitted on cross examination that he CIVIL PROCEDURE
could have just walked away from the altercation.
The court declined to address defendant’s claim
that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury Court Granted Plaintiff’s Untimely
on self-defense by failing to expressly instruct the Motion To Reargue
jury that it must unanimously agree on the factual
basis for rejecting the self-defense theory. The court CASE: Smith v. The Village Green, Inc.
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
stated that defendant waived this claim when de- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6041365
fense counsel did not object to the jury instructions COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
and even indicated his satisfaction with it. DATE: June 15, 2020 • PAGES: 5

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune