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 CourtListenerCites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Amodio v. AmodioSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-02-16· cited 137×
- Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-04-09· cited 129×
- Asherman v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-03-03· cited 112×
- Cobham v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-09-11· cited 95×
- State v. AshermanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-03-18· cited 44×
- New England Pipe Corp. v. Northeast Corridor FoundationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-05· cited 33×
- State v. GonzalezConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-03-11· cited 22×
- Wojculewicz v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1955-07-12· cited 18×
- Independent Party of CT-State Central v. MerrillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-02-19· cited 18×
- Small v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court· 2007-05-15· cited 11×
- Small v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-01-20· cited 9×
- Town of Redding v. Elfire, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2006-12-26· cited 7×
- James v. Comm'r of Corr.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-05-17· cited 5×
- State v. BerthiaumeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2017-03-14· cited 4×
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.