Skip to main content

Berthiaume v. State

Citations

  • 192 Conn. App. 322

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of the crime of burglary in the first degree, filed a petition for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence regarding the alleged ulterior motives of a witness for the respondent state of Connecticut for testifying at the petitioner's criminal trial. Following his conviction, the petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence in his criminal case pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 42-53). The criminal court denied the motion, concluding that the petitioner's evidence was insuffi- cient to support his motion because, although the evidence was newly discovered, it was immaterial, cumulative and unlikely to produce a different result at trial. Thereafter, the petitioner brought the present action by filing in the trial court the subject petition for a new trial pursuant to statute (§ 52-270). The trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the state, concluding that the petitioner's claim of newly discovered evidence had been fully and fairly litigated in the criminal proceeding, and, therefore, his petition was barred by res judicata. Subsequently, the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the state on the basis of the preclusive effect of the proceeding in the criminal court, as the criminal court lacked the authority under the applicable rule of practice (§ 42-55) to rule on the petitioner's claim of newly discovered evidence; because § 42-55 requires that a petition for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence be brought only in civil court, the criminal court lacked the authority to rule on such a claim or to award the petitioner the relief he requested of a new trial, and, therefore, because the criminal court could not have rendered a valid, final decision on the petitioner's motion for a new trial, res

Judges: Lavine; Devlin; Eveleigh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.